Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Council House Sales

Mr. Phil Sawford: If he will list the moneys held by local authorities from the sale of council houses. [82779]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): My Department collects figures for housing receipts, primarily from the sale of council houses, annually; but, it is not possible to distinguish separately amounts held by an authority at a given date in terms of accumulated housing and other receipts. I shall place in the Library of the House the relevant figures for each local authority for the last financial year.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the Government initiative to release some of those capital receipts. How is the money that has been released being used, and what impact has that had on existing housing stock throughout the country?

Ms Armstrong: Hon. Members will remember that, in the comprehensive spending review, the Government announced that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, an extra £4.7 billion would be provided through the capital receipts initiative to improve council houses. Nearly £1.4 billion has already been allocated and used to carry out practical and important work, such as improving bathrooms and heating systems and supplying new windows. In that way, we can ensure that all people, no matter what sort of house they live in, have a decent house that they can make into a home.

Mr. James Gray: The Minister carefully speaks about improving council houses and so on, but she should remember that 250,000 new social housing units were built under the previous Conservative Government, whereas 23,000 have been built in the first year of the Labour Government; I understand that 130,000 are planned during the lifetime of this Parliament. Does she agree that that is a disgraceful record on providing new social housing? If capital receipts are to be used, cannot they be used to build new houses?

Ms Armstrong: The programme for new build of social housing continues where it is needed, but the

Conservative Government left a shameful record of deterioration of perfectly good houses because they did not like the people who lived in those houses. That was a disgrace and we are going to put it right.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend know how many jobs are created when moneys of the order that she describes are released? Does she agree that a warm, draught-proof and dry house that has been modernised is a priority for every one of our citizens? My councillors are glad of the moneys that have been released, but they urge me to ask the Government for a little more such money.

Ms Armstrong: We are doing what we can to increase and improve the housing programme. In addition to the capital receipts initiative, we have recently initiated new pathfinder programmes for private finance in council housing. I know that several hon. Members are grateful for those initiatives, which have resulted in more people being employed in the building industry. Crucially, more of those people are being trained, so we shall once again have a building industry that is able to employ the unemployed and increase the skills of many people who live in council houses.

Integrated Transport Strategy

Mrs. Ann Winterton: What assessment he has made of the role for the car in the integrated transport strategy; and if he will make a statement. [82781]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): The integrated transport White Paper sets out our assessment of the role of the car in our integrated transport strategy and the ways in which the Government will tackle the legacy of congestion, deteriorating road infrastructure and pollution left by the previous Government.

Mrs. Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that motoring remains the most popular form of transport; and that, for many in both rural and suburban areas, a car is essential to daily life? How best can he ensure that the car is taken into consideration within the wider transport system, so as not to deny the freedom and personal mobility it brings? Will he ensure that car access is not restricted in any way until a meaningful alternative in the form of a public transport system is in place?

Dr. Reid: We accept fully that the car remains a necessity for many people. It would be entirely unrealistic to envisage that the car will not remain the dominant method of private transport in rural and urban areas over the next three decades. However, unlike the previous Government, we want to present real transport choices that people want. We aim to develop public forms of transportation. That is why we have allocated an extra £150 million for buses in rural areas, why we spend nearly £300 million a year on the bus fuel duty rebate, and why we increased the rural challenge in the last Budget. In transport, as in so many other fields, the Government are the champion of rural areas.

Mr. Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we recognise the


value of the car for journeys appropriate to that mode of transport, it is important to discourage the use of private cars for inappropriate journeys? Does he agree also that we should welcome the European motor manufacturers' voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions by 25 per cent? They should be encouraged in that endeavour and asked to do more.

Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend says, the car has brought to generations of people increased mobility, social experience and convenience. That is beyond doubt. It is also beyond doubt that, if we do nothing, future generations will not reap the benefits of car ownership that were extended to previous generations. That is why, while protecting the right to car ownership, we are attempting to persuade people to use their cars differently. We realise that we can do that effectively only if we give people a real choice. That is why the Government strongly support public forms of transportation.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will agree that the Government must sort out their catastrophic inheritance as a result of the Conservatives' privatisation of the railways. Do we not require legislation for the Strategic Rail Authority? Will the Minister confirm that it is realistically too late to hope to see such legislation in this parliamentary Session? Can he confirm further that the Government do not intend to legislate for the Strategic Rail Authority until the next parliamentary year?

Dr. Reid: No, I will not confirm that. We obviously want to introduce transport legislation as soon as possible, including legislation for the Strategic Rail Authority. If the hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition Benches can encourage those in the other place to accept the working time directive that we are extending to them, in order to give them a rest after 600 years of making decisions while being elected by no one, we shall be able to introduce legislation for the Strategic Rail Authority in this session.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage the privatised rail companies to provide good access not only to car parking, but to a regulated taxi service? When the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), visits my constituency—which she will do in the next few weeks—will he ensure that she takes the time to observe the problems that passengers experience when arriving at Cambridge railway station, which does not have good access to a regulated taxi service?

Dr. Reid: I certainly hope that the points my hon. Friend makes will be noted not only by the new head of the Strategic Rail Authority, but by the companies themselves. Access to safe and secure car parking at railway stations is part of an integrated transport policy. That is why I am glad that, following the last Budget, we were able to announce considerable investment in closed circuit television for car parks, including those at railway stations. As to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will understand if I refrain from dictating her hour-to-hour programme on any visit. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard my hon. Friend's comments.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Hon. Members will have listened with some incredulity to the

right hon. Gentleman's claims for his integrated transport policy. It is true that he has come fairly late to his post, but will he not admit that all his Government have to show for two years of talking about an integrated transport policy are cuts in road improvements, cuts in investment in public transport, a failure to legislate and 100 glossy publications about transport? The Government's actual transport policy has taxed off the road working people—particularly the elderly and those in rural areas—and all those not fortunate enough to have access to helicopters and two Jaguars.

Dr. Reid: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how much we regret the fact that the right hon. Lady's friendly face will not be seen on the Opposition Front Bench for much longer. Considering the companions with whom she has to share breakfast round the kitchen table, it is understandable that she wishes to join the real world outside.
We have made it clear that the worst and most anti-car policy would be that adopted by the Conservative Government—to do nothing. We outlined a range of measures in the White Paper to assist motorists. For example, we intend to make it easier for people to buy the new car of their choice, including those not type-approved by the European Union, by removing the current numerical limit on commercial imports of cars. Many people feel that it is a disgrace that our motorists have to pay so much more than those on the continent for cars.

Ms Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend is aware of the misery that is caused to thousands of car owners by the activities of cowboy wheel-clampers. He is also aware of the welcome given by motoring organisations to the Home Office's promise to do something about regulating the industry. Is he aware that there is concern that the current proposals may not be strong enough? Will he agree to convene discussions with the Home Office, the police, motoring organisations and the respectable arm of the wheel-clamping industry so that we can take tough measures to put an end to the preying on unsuspecting motorists by those modern day highway robbers?

Dr. Reid: There will be considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's points. My colleagues in the Home Office are already taking action on the issue. I do not want to usurp their prerogative by convening a meeting, but I shall discuss the issue with them.

Fuel Poverty

Mr. David Rendel: What steps he has taken to end fuel poverty among pensioners. [82782]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, although Britain does not have one of the coldest climates in Europe, it suffers the highest rate of deaths caused by the effects of cold and hypothermia. There were 30,000 last year. That is unacceptable. That is why we cut the VAT on fuel that the previous Government imposed. We have increased the winter fuel payment by 500 per cent. from £20 a year to £100. Today, we have published our consultation


proposals for the new home energy efficiency scheme, which will provide warmer homes for pensioners on low incomes. We believe that that will make a real difference.

Mr. Rendel: We welcome the increase in the home energy efficiency scheme, for which we have been pressing for a long time, but should not the Government consider two further measures? First, they should reduce VAT on energy insulation materials to 5 per cent. across the board. Secondly, to integrate properly across Departments, they should accept the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, which is coming back to the House on Friday and which they have previously opposed. It will ensure that the health services are involved in the issue and made to play their part in avoiding pensioner fuel poverty.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes two sound points. We are involved in consultation with the Department of Health on how we can help in the production of the Bill and improve it. We have made a considerable contribution to reducing fuel bills. Under the old scheme, they would have been reduced by approximately £45 a year. Our measures will lead to a reduction of £1,000 a year, which is a considerable advance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are hundreds of thousands of pensioners whose homes are still very poorly insulated? Their heating raises the temperature of their neighbourhood far more than it raises the temperature of their homes. Will he confirm that the regulations relating to this morning's announcement will ensure that all such people will be eligible for proper grants for complete home insulation, even if they have had a partial grant in the past? It has been a ridiculous anomaly for a long time that people who have had small draught-proofing schemes are not eligible for cavity wall insulation and proper loft insulation.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend's point is sound. Those who were receiving partial grants were about only 2 per cent. of the total, and we are wiping the slate clean and making the grants available to all. We estimate that about 3.6 million households will be eligible for them, and our proposals for the first two years will directly affect about 500,000 of them.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition welcome his announcement this morning? However, given the overall scale of fuel poverty in this country, why will not he support the all-party warm homes campaign, which he and his hon. Friends fully supported in opposition?
Why are the Government seeking to redefine fuel poverty by excluding 5.5 million homes from a strategy to eradicate it? Does not the exclusion of those homes give a whole new meaning to the term social exclusion?

Mr. Prescott: It is a bit much for the hon. Gentleman to be concerned about the campaign for warmer homes when the Conservatives doubled VAT on fuel. I am pleased that he welcomes the 500 per cent. increase in cold weather payments, from £20 to £100, which was made by this Government, not the previous Administration. The changes that we now propose will immediately benefit 500,000

people and will be targeted to help individuals in private homes rather than people in social housing, who will be helped by the £3.6 billion of capital receipts.
I am sad to hear that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) will be standing down from the Opposition Front Bench, but looking around her and hearing the latest contributions from those who are jockeying for her position, it is hard to find anyone with a face that is younger or fresher than hers who is able to match her ability.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his comments about the Government's action to end fuel poverty for many people throughout the country.
I suggest that social exclusion, to which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) referred, was caused by the previous Government denying local authorities the chance to build old people's homes and bungalows. That means that there is now greater demand for old people's accommodation. In my constituency, old people living in a three-bedroomed house are paying £16 a week for fuel because their home is too large, and there is a shortage of bungalows and old people's accommodation.
Will my right hon. Friend take action to encourage local authorities to build more such accommodation, and to encourage the lettings programme, thus ensuring that old people in large houses will be transferred to more suitable accommodation, allowing them to escape from the fuel poverty in which they are now trapped?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a couple of pilot schemes that are dealing with those particular problems and seeking solutions. However, when I hear Opposition Members talking about the sale of council houses, I am bound to say that the greatest indictment of the Conservatives is that they accumulated between £4 billion and £5 billion in housing receipts and did not allow local authorities to use them to deal with the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.

Road Building Programme (Essex)

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about the road building programme in Essex. [82783]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received various representations about aspects of road building and associated transport issues in Essex.

Mr. Amess: The delays in completing the M11 link road are an absolute disgrace—for which I blame the Government—and Labour's partners, the Liberal Democrats, suffered huge reverses in Southend, West on Thursday as a result of their road-building policy. How does the Minister expect us to maintain any roads in my constituency when we have suffered a 12 per cent. cut in road maintenance as a result of the Government's policy? What exactly have the Government done since 1 May 1997 to ease traffic congestion in Southend, West?

Dr. Reid: One road into Southend certainly seems to have been effective the road from Basildon.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have adopted a policy of targeting roads for schemes that have been not only costed, but funded, unlike the fantasy football league wish list produced by the last Government. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the Government's decision to provide £92 million for the A130 in Essex. That is largely although not exclusively—a result of the efforts of, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), who has made a much more constructive contribution to the Essex infrastructure than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Southend, and Essex generally, will benefit from the new A13; but will the Minister ask his Department to examine the impact of the new road as it crosses from Thurrock into the London boroughs, where there is considerable congestion, partly as a consequence of the improved road structure? Additional road traffic management schemes could provide greater mobility not only for commuters, but in the important corridor to the Thames gateway and the industrial areas on the river frontage. There is a problem on the London borough boundary, and I hope that the Minister will get his Department to look at it—at minimal cost.

Dr. Reid: Everything that we do is done at minimal cost, to the benefit of the taxpayer.
Of course I will examine the problem. My hon. Friend has made a good point. We have been contributing to an integrated transport policy in Essex, using radical but rational criteria for road building, as we have elsewhere in the country. It must be said that we have not always been helped by a Tory regime in Essex—the Tory regime that cut education spending to £3 million below the Government's recommended level, knocked £8 million off the social services budget and increased school meal charges by 15 per cent. The whole House will welcome the news that that Tory administration was toppled this morning, and that there is now a Labour leader.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that it is a nightmare trying to persuade firms to establish themselves in Southend-on-Sea, where unemployment is relatively high? The problem is particularly bad in Shoeburyness. It takes about half an hour to get outside the town, because of traffic congestion. I realise that many areas suffer from congestion, but will the Minister persuade his Department to look at the congestion in Southend to see whether it is worse than the average, and whether there might be a case for a ring road? That would greatly ease all our problems.

Dr. Reid: I speak from memory, but I believe that some years ago, there was a plan for a Rochford bypass in the hon. Gentleman's area. I think—again, I speak from memory—that the scheme was withdrawn because the last Conservative Government refused to make funds available, or at least were extremely unlikely to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that since then Southend, and Essex as a whole, have been promoting more sustainable transport measures as part of the south-east Essex transport package. I am glad to say that my Department has supported that for the last four years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments.

Opencast Mining

Dr. Nick Palmer: What the response has been to the new guidance on opencast mining from groups who submitted comments during the consultation phase. [82784]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Council for the Protection of Rural England has written welcoming the new guidance. We have not as yet received any other responses since the guidance was published on 31 March.

Dr. Palmer: As my right hon. Friend will know, there are cynical people out there who tend to have doubts about consultation exercises. When he announced the consultation on mineral planning guidance note 3, a number of my constituents expressed doubts about whether that was genuinely meant. May I pass on the congratulations of many constituents? They were pleasantly surprised by the open-mindedness and creativeness of the Department in responding to their comments and in producing guidelines that are seen as balanced, fair and a good basis for the future.

Mr. Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It was an extremely good exercise, and I welcome the constructive comments on the guidance from Opposition Members who have problems with opencasting in their constituencies. I thank the House generally for the constructive approach to the consultation, which produced a welcome solution to the problem of opencasting. The fact that we arrived at a solution with the support of some Opposition Members is a credit to the House.

Single Regeneration Budget

Mr. Alan Johnson: If he will make a statement on the single regeneration budget for Yorkshire and Humberside. [82785]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): The single regeneration budget—SRB—provides resources to support regeneration initiatives carried out by local partnerships. The SRB in Yorkshire and Humberside is now managed by the Yorkshire and the Humber regional development agency. It is considering 22 final bids for round 5, and will make recommendations to Ministers, who will take final decisions around the end of June this year.

Mr. Johnson: With respect to the competitiveness of businesses in the Yorkshire and Humber region, does my hon. Friend agree that the emphasis in SRB programmes needs to be placed on measures to improve learning in the work force, and on better links between businesses and the further and higher education sector?

Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are committed to giving everyone the opportunity to have a stake in society through better education and training. We must all develop and sustain a regard for learning at any age.

Mr. David Curry: Will the Minister have regard to the importance of making sure


that the various funding flows—national and European—that contribute to regeneration are properly co-ordinated, integrated and prioritised? To that end, does he recognise the importance of the difficult circumstances in the rural uplands, particularly in North Yorkshire, and will he make sure that, when objective 2 designation for the rural strand is agreed, it will include all the areas currently under 5b? The situation in the hills is desperate, with a whole society in crisis.

Mr. Meale: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. In rounds 1 to 4, Yorkshire and Humberside got co-ordinated investment income of £242 million and an SRB direct contribution of £52 million. The new regional development agencies must pay due regard to the needs of rural areas.

Housing

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What measures he is taking to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to housing associations. [82786]

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Our guidance on local authority housing strategies makes it clear that housing transfer is one of the options that an authority should consider when developing its strategy. However, we would not seek to encourage authorities to pursue transfer where it appears inappropriate or where a majority of tenants oppose it.

Mr. Swayne: As a result of the changes that the Government introduced to the scheme last year, New Forest council will have to pay out £7 million for disposing of its stock£7 million that would otherwise have been available to improve the life of tenants in the New Forest area. Can the Minister justify that? Will he undertake to review the 8 per cent. charged by his Department, as that is no longer consistent with market rates?

Mr. Raynsford: This year, we have the largest programme ever of authorities seeking transfer, so the financial circumstances are not such as to put them off. The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. Is he not aware that we have already announced that we are reducing the 8 per cent. discount rate to 7 per cent?

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not right to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister that all housing stock transfers must receive the approval of the tenants concerned? Is it not important to remember that, in some cases, it will enable local authorities to tackle both their private sector and their public sector problems better if such approval is given? In councils such as Burnley, with low-value properties, there will be a residual debt problem, through no fault of the authority. Has that yet been overcome?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point about the importance of keeping tenants closely involved and securing their support for any proposal for transfer. What a contrast with the previous Government, who introduced a botched and rigged voting system for their infamous tenants' choice scheme. It was

designed to imply that anyone who did not vote was in. favour. That sort of gerrymandering has no place in this Government's approach.
I say to my hon. Friend that we are looking closely at the issue of overhanging debt, which we recognise is important. We are conscious of it and are seeking to make progress in ways that will help authorities such as his.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have recently approved the transfer of no fewer than 130,000 homes? Given his acceptance in an earlier answer that that is a record for large-scale voluntary transfers, will he also confirm that, as long as the Government are still casting around for their own distinctive housing policy, they will continue to apply proven Conservative housing policies such as LSVT?

Mr. Raynsford: I will do no such thing, but I will confirm that the Government are pursuing housing policies that are designed to respond to the needs of the country and to the aspirations of tenants. I have referred to the very real difference between our attitude and that of the hon. Gentleman's party, which took tenants for granted and tried to impose voting systems that were an absolute caricature of tenant consultation. We are determined to ensure that housing needs are met through the release of additional resources, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has already referred, through the comprehensive spending review.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the previous Administration, stock transfers from councils to housing associations were not always in the best long-term interests of the tenants? They drove rents even higher than they drove up council rents; they did not foster tenant involvement in the housing association sector, which they did in the council sector; and they paid no attention to management costs, from the chief executive's salary downwards. Will he assure the House that this Government will take heed of those matters?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely fair point and highlights the extent to which the previous Government drove rents upwards in a way that led to extreme poverty for many tenants and increased the poverty trap. That is why this Government are pursuing a policy to ensure that there is moderation in rent increases for social housing and are seeking to ensure that tenants have genuine choice when they choose their appropriate future home. That is a principle on which the Government will continue to operate.

Rural Bypasses

Mr. Peter Luff: What plans he has for the funding for rural bypasses in 2000–01. [82787]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Construction is due to begin on five rural bypass schemes in our targeted programme of improvements in 2000–01.

Mr. Luff: The Minister can no longer take decisions on bypasses in Scotland, although he represents a Scottish


constituency, but he remains the prime authority for decisions on funding for bypasses in England and in Worcestershire. May I seek an assurance from him that there will be large and adequate sums of money available to fund the construction of the urgently needed bypasses in the English shire counties, such as the Wyre Piddle bypass? The need for an improved environment and increased road safety was tragically demonstrated by the serious accident there only last week.

Dr. Reid: I am delighted that I was able to announce 15 bypasses within two days of having the honour of becoming a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—three times more than the Conservative Government announced in the previous three or four years. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Wyre Piddle bypass. I am aware of the tragic accident of 28 April, which the police are investigating, and, as he will know, his own county council may submit an application under its local transport plan, which is due in July.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, where there was no alternative, the Government would support the building of bypasses for small rural market towns? One such case is Bungay in my constituency, where, every day, many trucks from Bernard Matthewsa major East Anglian employer—simply have to squeeze their way through the ancient and narrow streets of Bungay because there is no alternative route to the processing factory 10 miles to the south. Would it not be a major improvement for the environment of Bungay if a bypass were built?

Dr. Reid: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his clever question. He will understand if I agree only with the general proposition; that, where there is no alternative, we will look at the creation of bypasses. That is why we have created more than the previous Government. I am pleased to say that five of the seven schemes in our targeted programme of improvements to start in 2000-01 are rural bypasses. I shall restrain myself from commenting on the specific merits of Bungay and associated roads in the area.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Is the Minister aware of the enormous damage that is being done to the environment—particularly the ancient trees of Epping Forest—as a result of the amount of traffic that is passing through the forest because of the cancellation of the planned north-facing slip roads at junction 5 of the M11, which would have created, effectively, the Epping bypass? Given the new evidence of the vast environmental damage being done to those protected trees, which have been there for more than 150 years, will the Minister reconsider his decision not to build the north-facing slip roads, and build them?

Dr. Reid: I am always grateful for all information given to me by the hon. Lady on arboriculture. She would not expect me—however convincing her one-minute question might have been—suddenly to announce a change to the complete roads programme of Britain.

Road Haulage Industry

9. Mr. Gareth Thomas: When he last discussed the problems facing the road haulage industry with representatives of the industry. [82788]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): I frequently meet the road haulage industry associations. For instance, on 27 April, I met a number of individual hauliers and held informal talks with the director-general and president of the Freight Transport Association. On the same day, I met the director-general of the Road Haulage Association. I very much look forward to meeting the industry tonight as the guest of honour at the Road Haulage Association dinner.

Mr. Thomas: May I express support for my right hon. Friend's policy of promoting dialogue with the industry, rather than the confrontation pursued by certain groups within the industry, not to mention by the Conservative party? However, does he accept that the significant increases in fuel duty have imposed burdens, particularly on smaller road hauliers in more remote areas; including the successful company in my constituency, L. E. Jones International? Does he take those concerns to heart, and will he redress that problem?

Dr. Reid: One of the reasons why we have established the road haulage forum is to address issues such as those raised by my hon. Friend. We will be looking at all issues, particularly competitiveness and matters affecting it. As far as his support for dialogue rather than disruption is concerned, I fully support that, and I hope very much that that is shared by everyone attending tonight's dinner.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the Minister met representatives of the road haulage industry in my constituency—I have some big road haulage companies which operate not only nationally, but internationally—one of the road projects that they would like to see included in a roads programme would be the Poynton bypass—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with road haulage matters. I know that the hon. Gentleman tried to get in on an earlier question, and was not successful.

Mr. Winterton: The question refers to 
the problems facing the road haulage industry
one of which is the problem of inadequate roads. In that particular area, there are grave problems with the road infrastructure, not least because the second runway at Manchester airport is shortly to be opened—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Procedure Committee, so I think that he knows better than that. Would the Minister like to answer about the road in that area, and not get on to Manchester airport?

Dr. Reid: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for preparing me with that information for the Road


Haulage Association dinner that I shall attend later tonight, for any future aviation dinners and for any Conservative association dinners in his constituency.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend also take into consideration hauliers in Kent, particularly in north and east Kent, who are suffering from the cheap costs of fuel in France? Will he give some thought to the fact that Customs and Excise has the right to charge fuel duty as drivers come into this country? Where is he with the current discussions with road hauliers?

Dr. Reid: The first meeting of the road haulage forum took place on Thursday 8 April. The Freight Transport Association said that it was
very impressed and encouraged by the will, intent and urgency of the Forum to get to grips with our industry's problems without delay.
Further meetings of officials were held last Friday; more will take place this week and next week. I expect the next meeting of the forum to take place as soon as it is practicable, probably towards the end of this month, so we are addressing the issues seriously. We do take the industry's representations very seriously, but we have said that there is over-capacity in the industry.
It is doubtful whether all the industry's ills can be laid at the door of one or two particular aspects, but we take them all seriously and we will continue our fruitful discussions with the industry. I hope that the whole road haulage industry will accept that dialogue is the fruitful way forward—as everyone else agrees—rather than disruption and inflicting yet more punishment and inconvenience on the general public.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It has been a privilege to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—may I get that in first? May I also point out how welcome it is that the right hon. Gentleman has given up misusing the KPMG report on these occasions?
Following the Secretary of State's pitiful performance at the Freight Transport Association dinner last month, may I welcome the fact that it is the Minister of Transport who will be addressing the Road Haulage Association dinner this evening, not the Secretary of State? However, if the Minister wants dialogue and not disruption, will he tell the House what the road haulage forum is meant to achieve? Why the delay? When is the next meeting and what is the agenda?

Dr. Reid: May I say in reciprocation that it is a great honour and privilege to serve under my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister? With all due respect to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), I think that I have gained more from that experience than the hon. Gentleman has from his.
On the road haulage industry, two formal meetings of the forum, three meetings of officials, a separate meeting with the Freight Transport Association, plus another meeting 10 days ago with the Road Haulage Association—all in a period of six weeks—can be called many things, but it can hardly be called sluggish. The hon. Gentleman knows fine and well what is being discussed at the forum. We are covering the range of issues that the

hauliers themselves wish to raise to ascertain the facts pertaining to the competitiveness of the industry, and those factors that influence it.
We have made it plain that we are not going to unpick political decisions that have already been made because a gun is held to our head. The forum is part of the continuation of discussions that we have with road hauliers and the Freight Transport Association, but we have made it equally plain that, if we can come to some agreement on the facts of the case, that will be useful in informing the future decisions of all parties.

Crossrail Project

Mr. Mike Gapes: What representations he has received about the crossrail project. [82789]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and hon. Friends, mostly on behalf of individual constituents and local authorities.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a fast rail link from east to west London, including Stratford to Paddington, would not only take a great deal of pressure off the underground system—the District, Circle, Metropolitan and Central lines—but greatly benefit those who live in one side of London, but work in the other, and the many millions of visitors to our capital city?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a fair case for crossrail. However, we have not cancelled the project—although the previous Administration said that it should not proceed any further. The crossrail route has been protected, and we have taken all measures necessary to ensure that it is available when a decision is taken on the project. I should say that that decision is more likely to be made by the London mayor and assembly.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does not the prospect of road-user and workplace car-parking charges make it more important than ever that effective public transport links—from the west into London, and to the east—such as crossrail, be instituted? Is not the real problem that the Administration have been unable to build public-private partnerships in selling London Underground leases, so that its capital budget is so constrained that money is just not available?

Mr. Prescott: Most people will recall that, under the previous Administration, an assessment of various transport links—to the north, south, east and west, and crossrail—was made, and that a good case was made for building all the links. However, a choice had to be made. The previous Administration chose to build the Jubilee line extension; we are choosing to create a public-private partnership for London Underground, and that programme is on time. We are currently in the pre-qualifying period and inviting bidders. We shall, by autumn 1999, issue invitations to tender, and those tenders should be returned by spring 2000. Progress on the programme is continuing, as stated to the House.

Road and Canal Transport

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the integration of road and canal transport. [82790]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): A key message of the integrated transport White Paper is to ensure that all forms of transport, including waterways, work well together, and that each is able to make its maximum contribution.

Mr. Fabricant: In practice, that "key message" is a load of old tosh. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as planned, the Birmingham northern relief road would cut the Lichfield-Hatherton canal in half? Is he also aware that the Government inspector said that an overpass or underpass should be provided? Is he further aware that his boss—the two—Jag Secretary of State—overruled the inspector, so that work on the canal cannot go ahead, damaging prospects for canals in south Staffordshire? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that might have had something to do with the fact that both Lichfield district and city councils were won back by the Conservatives? Were not the Government's decisions a disaster, and what will they do in future to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again?

Mr. Meale: Speaking of a load of tosh, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he seems to be at variance with both his Front-Bench colleagues and some of his Back-Bench colleagues, who, only a few moments ago, were supporting not only the road haulage industry, but new roads across the length and breadth of England. I remind him of the 15-month public inquiry on the relief road, at the end of which the Government, in the national interest, took a decision on it.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be at variance also with people in his own area, as the bodies supporting the legal challenge to the relief road have withdrawn their objections. As for the Government's plans, we shall very soon be publishing a daughter document that will take into account all the planning considerations, so that we do not again get into the type of mess that the previous Government left us in.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a wholly unsatisfactory answer and I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Madam Speaker: In that case, we must now move on to the next question.

Planning Appeal Procedures

Mr. Bill Michie: If he will make a statement on the proposed changes to planning appeal procedures in Yorkshire and Humberside. [82791]

Mr. Andrew Love: What is the current position regarding proposed changes to planning appeal procedures in London. [82795]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I announced the Government's conclusions on improvements to planning appeal procedures on 31 March. The improved procedures will apply throughout England and are not confined to any specific region.

Mr. Michie: Will my right hon. Friend further consider appeal procedures that cause problems in local authorities? As a classic example, a local authority Sheffield—refuses a development; the decision is overturned by the Tory Secretary of State; the developer continues; the banking falls down; half a road is demolished; those in housing at the top, which has nothing to do with the development, have to live with an eyesore for three years; local government has no power to deal with the problem; insurance companies play hide and seek; and the developer may go bankrupt. If the Secretary of State overrides a local authority, surely the responsibility resides with the Secretary of State, and not the local authority.

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State's reserve powers are used extremely sparingly: of about half a million planning applications that go through every year, about 120 to 150 are called in. The general principle that successive Administrations have followed is that planning decisions are better taken locally, within a strategic framework, which we are trying to develop at regional and local level.
When my hon. Friend was chief whip on Sheffield city council and involved with the planning committee, he would have been the first to argue for local authorities to have the power to take planning decisions, and I hope that he will be consistent in that approach.

Mr. Love: Unlike my hon. Friend, I welcome the new appeal procedures, which are part of an overall modernisation of the planning system. Given that a new Greater London Authority is to be created, and the complexity of some of the issues in the capital, what does the Department intend to do to modernise the planning system in Greater London?

Mr. Caborn: The exercise in which we have been engaged since we came to office, which was illustrated to the House in our first report on modernising planning, shows that we have taken a systematic approach to the whole question of land use planning. More importantly, we must start linking that with transport and economic planning, to give us a comprehensive planning system that will be applied not only in the regions but in London. The decisions for London will be the responsibility of the mayor and the new authority, but they must be taken in concert with our modernisation of the overall planning programme.

Sir Sydney Chapman: What is the point of giving the Greater London Authority the power to direct a local planning authority in London to refuse a significant planning application, when the applicant will have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State? Would it not be far better to be more radical and give the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to decide planning appeals, except in those significant planning applications that would affect areas outside Greater London?

Mr. Caborn: The new mayor will have to consider the wider concerns of London, not only factoring in the land


use planning but taking an overview. As the legislation clearly states, the final decision lies with the Secretary of State. We are trying to bring a more holistic approach to the whole question of planning, of which land use planning is but one aspect. The London development agency will discuss transport and economic planning with the mayor. We hope that more informed decisions will be reached, to address the overall needs of London and, indeed, of the English regions.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Many people throughout the regions warmly welcome my right hon.

Friend's changes to planning procedures, but does he accept that much of what he has said about the role of the Greater London Authority applies equally to the regions, which want a strategic role in planning and much else, through the regional development agencies in the interim, but eventually through regional assemblies?

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend knows that, through the regional planning guidance, we have instituted an examination in public so that all those issues can be addressed, including the economic impact that the RDAs have at regional level. That agenda will make progress, slowly but surely.

Point of Order

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 12 February, I tabled a question to the Foreign Secretary and it took him some 82 days to reply—the answer came on 5 May. In fact, that answer is so general that it could have been given at any time. Is that not a disgraceful way to treat the House? Is it in order for a Cabinet Minister, who—on his own admission—does not bother to finish the paperwork, to prove it to the detriment of the House? What redress do we have?

Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Lady and the House that it has long been the view of the House that Ministers should endeavour to answer ordinary and straightforward questions within a working week of their being tabled. That guideline is contained in "Erskine May" on page 293. I share the hon. Lady's view that, in this case, the delay has been most unreasonable and I ask all Ministers to take that point to heart for the future. I refer them to "Erskine May", page 293, and I hope that they will follow those guidelines.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order, because I have dealt with the matter.

Control of Fireworks

Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public; to provide for a licensing system for firework displays; and for connected purposes.
My object today is to seek the views of the House of Commons on the problem of fireworks and to establish whether Members consider that the answer I put forward in the Bill is the right one. Of course, it is well known that ten-minute rule Bills rarely become law, but my hope is that, if we get a substantial majority for the Bill today, it might persuade this or a future Government to do something about the problem.
First we need to establish whether there is a problem. My view is that we have not only a problem but a nightmare with fireworks. Those of us with elderly relatives, young children or domestic pets will know that, for a period of months around the time of Guy Fawkes night, genuine alarm and distress is caused by fireworks exploding at all times of day or night, sometimes in the early hours of the morning. I reside in the centre of Southend and I also have a flat in London. From the telephone calls that I receive from distressed constituents, the letters that I receive and the representations that I hear in conversation, I gain the impression that the public are fed up to the teeth with the problem and want something to be done. They look to Parliament to take the appropriate action.
Apart from the inconvenience, there is also a safety issue. All sports involve dangers, but we should not ignore the fact that, in 1997, 908 firework accidents were reported, of which about half involved hospital treatment or other medical treatment. The previous year saw three deaths, including that of a 10-year-old boy called Dale, who died after a lit firework was pushed through the letter box in his home in Nottingham. An adult in Kent died of facial injuries after a private bonfire party.
In fairness, Governments of both parties have tried to do something about the problem. However, the difficulty is that all the measures that they have proposed have not worked. We had an active Consumer Affairs Minister in the Conservative Government who, in 1996, said that he would introduce a root and branch policy to sort out the problem. He brought in new regulations, which imposed massive fines of £5,000 for letting off fireworks in the street. He also prohibited the sale of fireworks to people under 18 years of age. However, despite that, in 1997, a third of all the accidents happened in the street and half of the injuries were to children under 15. That policy did not work.
Dramatic measures were proposed by the new Labour Government. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), when he was the new Consumer Affairs Minister, energetically said:
Firework injuries have soared to unacceptable levels. I am taking tough action to protect the public. Too many elderly people live in fear because of hooligan fireworks.
He proposed a massive publicity campaign and spent £350,000 last year on advertising telling people about the problems. However, none of the proposals made by Government—Conservative or Labour—have worked.
We can either do nothing at all, or do something that will work. The only effective course of action is to make a change to the law that is clear, precise and unambiguous. I propose a total and complete ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public, and on the firing of fireworks by the general public. The Bill would also provide that organisations or individuals wanting to hold firework displays—which can be very exciting—would be permitted to do so only under licence from the local authority or council. Consideration of licence applications would take into account where and on what date such a display was to be held, and its duration.
I am aware that some councils want to be more flexible and liberal in their attitudes. The Bill would allow them to be so, but other areas might take a different point of view. The proposals would resolve the real nightmare of fireworks in an effective and practical manner.
In general, I am reluctant to promote legislation that reduces the freedom of individual citizens, but we should acknowledge that the freedom that people enjoy in relation to fireworks causes genuine alarm, distress and inconvenience to the majority. That is why we have to take action, and as soon as possible. I urge the House to face up to an issue that has been swept under the carpet for far too long, and to support the Bill.
I know that some hon. Members disagree with me. I hope that those who do say so and oppose the Bill, and that they then make their own proposals. We must accept that fireworks are worse than a problem—they are a nightmare. Something must be done to tackle the matter, and I believe that the proposals in the Bill are the only possible answers.
I hope that the House will be able to support my suggestion, and that real and effective legislation will be introduced before too long.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) kindly invited those who oppose his Bill to say so. In one sense, I am happy to voice my disagreement, but in another it gives me no great joy, as I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend. He and I agree on many matters, but we shall have to disagree on this.
Of course, I understand my hon. Friend's motivation. Who could fail to respond to his warning that fireworks cause injury or even, tragically, the occasional death? My hon. Friend disapproves of that, as do a number of his constituents. However, I part company with my hon. Friend over the disappointing way in which he reaches for the ban and the licensing regime to solve the problem. That is classic old socialism. I should be surprised if new, modern Labour Members were attracted to my hon. Friend's solution, as it closely resembles the old-style, patronising socialism of which we thought that we had seen the back. However, my hon. Friend's Bill in effect patronises the public.
If a habit existed that was harmful to individuals and to society, would my hon. Friend want to ban it outright? Might it not be more appropriate to warn the public about possible dangers, and then let intelligent people make up their own minds? To my mind, that would be the preferred solution, and it is the approach that has been adopted up to now.
My hon. Friend used statistics skilfully but rather selectively. I considered this matter not long ago, and am happy to say that I found that the efforts of successive Governments and Ministers over a period of years had resulted in a fall in the rate of accidents caused by fireworks. That is a result of the assiduous attention of a succession of Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). By informing the public and warning them of the danger, we have caused people to be ever more careful about the use of fireworks.
My argument is also more general. Without much difficulty, we could identify a number of activities that, tragically and unfortunately, cause mishap, injury and even death. In different ways, horse riding, mountaineering, rugby, off-shore boating and flying private aircraft all cause tragedies to occur. People are warned in advance of the danger, and undertake those activities in the full knowledge of the danger. Some of those activities cause danger to more than the participants. For example, brave volunteers go on to mountains or out in Royal National Lifeboat Institution boats.
We do not reach for the ban for those activities. We do not say that, because we disapprove of them or because they can cause injury, we must ban them. That is not the instinctive reaction of the Conservative—at least, I thought that it was not—and that is why I am disappointed by my hon. Friend's suggestion. I was even more disappointed that he went beyond the ban to introduce an old enemy—the licensing regime. A bureaucracy will be set up at the taxpayer's expense to tell people when they may or may not use fireworks in the pursuit of whatever pleasure they get from them. To do so would replace what my hon. Friend called a nightmare with nothing more than another nightmare. That is the wrong response to the problem.
My disappointment will not diminish my admiration and respect for my hon. Friend. I do not think that anything could do that. However, I must ask him to think again about his approach. Does he wish to set the precedent of banning something just because he disapproves of it or believes that it might injure people? I ask him not to go down the track of patronising the public, telling them that they do not have the sense to make a decision once they have been given information, so he must make the decision for them. That must run counter to conservatism, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think again. I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mrs. Christine Butler, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. John Cryer, Angela Smith, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. John Randall.

CONTROL OF FIREWORKS

Sir Teddy Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public; to provide for a licensing system for firework displays; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 97].

Opposition Day

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Pensions

Madam Speaker: We now come to the Opposition motion on the Government's pensions policy. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government's proposed pensions reforms are in chaos and will do great damage to long-term savings and pension provision, especially occupational pension schemes and Group Personal Pensions; that, unless changes are made which have been called for by Her Majesty's Opposition, the stakeholder pension will be an expensive failure; further believes the Minimum Income Guarantee combined with the proposed State Second Pension will constitute a massive extension of means-testing; and condemns the Government's complacency and incompetence which will ensure millions of future pensioners will be forced into dependence on state handouts in retirement.
I should like first to put on the record how sorry I was to hear of the death of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). I admired him greatly, although we were on different sides, and I shall remember his diligence and his quality. The same goes for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Today's debate is about what we believe—and the country is rapidly coming to believe—to be the Government's failure on pensions reforms. Almost the first thing that the Government did on coming into power was to send a signal to pensioners that they were second-class citizens. The removal of advance corporation tax dividend tax credits was a massive blow to pensioners and pension funds. In effect, it was a tax of —5 billion on long-term savings. No tax that the Government have imposed fits the description of a stealth tax better than this one. They hoped—no, they knew—that most people would not realise how much money they would lose each year.
Before the election, it was all different. The Labour party said in its manifesto:
We will support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions.
The removal of ACT dividend tax credits represents the Labour Government's first abject failure. Labour's first year in social security was about rows and long consultations—a sort of Peckham v. Birkenhead football match, but at least the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) arrived in government with some costed proposals. Those proposals were cut to pieces by the Chancellor, who demanded something very different. So, while the right hon. Member for Birkenhead gave birth to the term "stakeholder", by the time of his departure, he was no longer responsible for what it meant. Like "new Labour", the name was kept—a sort of fig leaf over the Government's nakedness on pensions.
The first year, which looked and sounded like the Mad Hatter's tea party, was succeeded by the second year, in which No. 10 Downing street parachuted the present

Secretary of State in to rescue the situation. The Secretary of State's record is what is to be examined today. After further delay, he finally decided to publish the Green Paper on pensions. Ministers were obviously rowing behind the scenes about compulsion. They were debating behind closed doors whether there should be extra compulsion. It appears that the Chancellor vetoed that, so no compulsion was included—or maybe it was.
If we glance at page 105 of the Green Paper, we find a little reference to what Ministers intended before they decided to publish the paper. It refers to:
compulsory funded pensions for those earning over £9,000 a year.
A mistake, surely, because elsewhere the Green Paper says:
We do not believe higher compulsory saving is justified.
So the Government are having it both ways. Is it a mistake or is it deliberate?
The Bill that the Government published as a result of the Green Paper seems to rule out extra compulsion—or does it? The Secretary of State now seems to be shifting his position. He starts, it appears, with some sort of equivocation, but now he is saying, as was reported in the Financial Times on 5 May:
The Minister said whether they—
he was referring to the self-employed—
should be compelled to contribute remained a live issue.
So there we have it, absolutely clear as mud. Perhaps it is the new Labour way of making change.
First, the Government advance one line openly and boldly while quietly holding on to another, then they wait to see what the opinion polls tell them before finally settling their policy. Perhaps the public can be convinced that both options are Government policy at the same time. That is not all. The Government were in such a panic, having delayed the reviews for so long, that they published the Bill detailing stakeholder pensions and moved it into Committee before the consultation process was even finished.
The Government set out a consultation process in the Green Paper and suddenly—this is the third one, remember—the Secretary of State got bored and decided to give the answer anyway, and wrote the Bill. It is rather like "Alice in Wonderland"—sentence first, verdict afterwards. That is the nature of the Government. They conduct sham consultation processes that are a waste of their time to cover their inability to make decisions. Yet the consultation process in which they engaged would have showed some serious flaws in the Bill, if they had waited to listen to the responses.
The lack of provision for advice in stakeholder pensions will strike a heavy blow at the proposal. The Government said that the public would not need it because the stakeholder pension is simple and low cost. True to form, however, the Government have not banished advice. They have just moved it outside the scheme.
In January, the Minister of State said:
I would expect the costs of advice to be met by the individuals who use it.
That is really big of him. So the scheme is low cost and simple provided that individuals pay for the advice themselves. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and others pointed out that, unless the Government tackled


that problem, many people would face that extra cost; they would not opt for the advice and could end up taking the wrong pension.
The Government came to power making much of mis-selling; they banged on about mis-selling almost every day and it seemed that that was their only policy. That is ironic, because they are now guilty of creating the most fertile possible territory for the biggest mis-selling exercise of all, and one for whose results future taxpayers will have to pick up the bill.
In the midst of all that, the Secretary of State wobbled. On 6 May, hidden away in Money Marketing, a spokesman for the DSS stated:
It is true we are considering the arrangements for provision of advice for stakeholder pension schemes.
He had suddenly realised that they had a problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a U-turn."] Is it a U-turn? In a written question, I asked the Minister of State about the matter. He sent me a real answer:
We shall be consulting further."— [Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 53.]
There it is, clear and straightforward—the smack of firm Government. The Minister of State knows where he is going, provided that he can ask someone else to tell him.
Another problem is that stakeholders will need to have trustees. However, the lifelong independent savings account scheme—LISA—launched by the Treasury and supported by the Secretary of State, has no such requirement. Independent observers agreed with Conservative Members that that complex structure of trustees would be expensive and would offer little protection. The NatWest response to the Green Paper was clear:
Trustees can add little extra protection but will make schemes more complex and expensive to administer.
In Committee, as the Minister of State is aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said again and again that the Government would have to think again. In effect, the Minister said, "No, we know what we are doing." As we have discovered, it takes a little while; we pounded away and, eventually, the penny dropped. The Secretary of State wobbled again. In an interview in the Financial Times, he stated:
alternative governance structures to trustees for stakeholder pensions would be allowed.
There were nods and winks, but nothing was in the Bill. I asked the Minister of State another written question, to which he answered:
We … propose to consult further on governance arrangements."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 53.]
That is the smack of firm Government.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): When we previously debated this matter, I knew that the hon. Gentleman had not read the Green Paper, but I thought that he would have done so by now. If he reads paragraph 38, he will see that the Government have always made it clear that stakeholder pensions would have trustees or, alternatively, would have alternative forms of governance, on which we were consulting. The point that he has just made is wrong, as his earlier point on compulsion was wrong. The Government have never believed that compulsion was the right option, because, for many people, there is nowhere

to go. What the hon. Gentleman was reading, on page 105, was a reference to the present scheme; that scheme is compulsory, if one is employed. I am surprised that he did not know that.

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is wonderful. The Secretary of State now seems to want to wobble at the Dispatch Box as well as in the newspapers. On page 55 of his Green Paper, it states:
The legislation for stakeholder pension schemes will provide for schemes to be set up under trust law.
The Government are wobbling like mad.

Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I shall press on. The Secretary of State has stated his position. The Government are trying to do several things at the same time. They issue little briefs to the newspapers saying, "We might do this." In the Chamber or in Committee, they say, "No, we won't." The Secretary of State tells us that they might or they might not. He is clearly aware that the Government are in difficulty.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the Bill makes provision for trustees, just as we promised. However, if he reads to the end of paragraph 38, he will see stated—in bold writing, so as to help people like him—that the Government
would welcome views from the pensions industry on alternative structures which could provide comparable benefits for stakeholder pension schemes members.
For goodness sake, surely it is time the hon. Gentleman read the whole Green Paper, rather than just briefings from his hon. Friends?

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is marvellous—the Secretary of State has produced a Bill before the consultation process has even finished. He now claims that he is clear because he invited others to tell him what to do, but he acted before they told him, and the result is the mess in which he now finds himself.

Mr. John Bercow: I would not want my hon. Friend to understate his powerful case in respect of consultation. Does he recall that a former junior Social Security Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), told the House on 15 December 1997 that the Government's proposals would be issued for further consultation in the first half of 1998? However, those proposals were eventually forthcoming only six months later. Does my hon. Friend believe that there is any causal link between the breaking of that promise and the removal of the hon. Member for Itchen from the Department of Social Security?

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is highly likely that there is such a link—knowing the way in which the Government work, they will come up with almost any excuse.
We are on the third process of consultation, but, in written answers, Ministers offer us only further consultation. There is no end to how little they are prepared to know, but how much over which they are prepared to argue and wobble.
That brings me to the third issue: group personal pensions. The Government demanded that stakeholder pension schemes should be pension products that are different from occupational pensions, personal pensions and group personal pensions. They were adamant that there was to be a clear distinction between stakeholder pensions and other schemes, and said that people would not be allowed to have a stakeholder pension and a personal or occupational pension.
Throughout the Committee stage, my hon. Friends made it absolutely clear that that would create serious problems, only to be met with blank stares and shaking heads. However, it appears that the Secretary of State has wobbled again, for, in the Financial Times of 28 April, he said:
Some group personal pensions may be allowed to label themselves as stakeholder pensions".
In a written question, I asked the Minister of State for clarification; his answer, published yesterday, states that the matter
will be developed in secondary legislation following further consultation."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 53.]
I must admit, the more one hears the Minister of State, the more one is reminded of Lewis Carroll when he wrote:
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
That appears to be the Minister of State's state of mind.
There we have it—stakeholder: the great new idea of the millennium; a new Rolls-Royce scheme that turns out, on inspection, to be a three-wheeled Robin Reliant from Arthur Daley. The Chancellor was so impressed with the scheme that he launched his own pension scheme, the LISA, which independent advisers believe will cut across the Department of Social Security and create confusion. The Institute for Fiscal Studies comments:
the same end results could have been achieved by simple reforms to the current system"—
simple reforms, not the complex nonsense that the Government have produced.
All of that is underscored and made worse by the minimum income guarantee, which creates an unstable platform for future saving for pensions. Of course, the minimum income guarantee, like everything else that the Government have announced, is no such thing. The Government's one consistent feature is that, whenever they announce a new policy, one need only examine their words to realise that they intend to achieve the opposite of what they have announced. Someone on low earnings will now seriously question whether there is any point in saving, because the income delivered under the minimum income guarantee will be as much for those who have saved over their working lives as for those who have not. As the financial section of the Sunday Telegraph put it:
don't save go to the pub".
All this is a huge attack on savings. Even worse, it is a huge attack on future taxpayers, who will have to pick up the bill for this ill-conceived nonsense. According to the Library's figures, under the new scheme, the number of pensioners in receipt of income support will increase from one in five to one in three. In money terms—this is the most staggering statistic—by 2050, spending will have

risen from approximately £13 billion to £20 billion in today's prices. The Government's policy will result in that massive increase.
When we add that to the Government's attack on widows pensions, their real agenda becomes clear. When it set out to gain Government, Labour talked a lot about changing from a handout to a hand up. It is now clear that the Government intend to give a slap down. It is no wonder that the savings ratio is falling when it should be rising. That is an indictment of the Government's policy.
There is also a problem regarding the incompetent handling of issues within the Department. That is illustrated by the problems with the national insurance recording system, the new computer system that runs the Contributions Agency. Those difficulties were already apparent in the early part of last year. Yet, when pressed about the matter, the Secretary of State seemed rather complacent. He said that the system would be available for new claimants in
the next couple of weeks.
However, after seven months of drift and indecision, the Government paid interim compensation payments to those who had not received the right money only under pressure from Conservatives in the other place. That is another example of the Government's complacency and incompetence. Many pensioners have experienced real worries and real fears because of the Government's failure to tell them what is going on.
There it is: in the words of Winston Churchill, the Government are
decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."—[0fficiat Report, 12 November 1936; Vol. 317, c. 1107.]
Labour came to office with big talk and smart phrases. A Government who were going to reform pensions, reduce dependency and improve savings have done exactly the opposite. It cannot be stressed enough that Labour set out to do those things and failed. This is an "Alice in Wonderland" Government: they say one thing and do another. They are all over the place, as Ministers have agreed. It is an "Alice in Wonderland" Government—that is worth repeating, because most people will realise that the description fits exactly. It would be laughable were it not for the arrogant and complacent failure that will cost pensioners dear in the future.
This Secretary of State is guilty of failing to deliver, and he will wear that charge like a millstone around his neck. He should leave now before he drags pensioners down with him.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
`commends the Government's approach to pensions reform, set out in its Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions"; congratulates the Government on its determination to tackle 18 years of abject failure on the part of the Conservative government to put pensions provision on a proper footing and rejects the Conservative plans to privatise pension provision; commends the Government's commitment to end the scandal of pensions mis-selling and its plans to strengthen the financial regulatory system; commends the Government on its commitment to economic stability and low inflation which helps pensioners; believes that its reforms to the corporate tax system, which will result in the lowest ever rate of


Corporation Tax, will be in the long-term interests of companies, shareholders and pensioners; and approves of the Government's introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee, Winter Fuel Payments, the re-introduction of free eye tests and commitment to concessionary travel for the elderly as part of its strategy to provide security in retirement.'.
At least "Alice in Wonderland" had a good ending—unlike the speech by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). Before I continue, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very kind tribute to Derek Fatchett, which is much appreciated by all those who knew and worked with him. He was a valued colleague and a decent and a kind man. Our thoughts are with his wife and two children and with his family. I thank. the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
We have listened to the hon. Gentleman speak about pensions policy and it is noteworthy that he did not mention his own policy once. Indeed, it is not at all clear whether the Conservative party, after 18 years in Government and two years in opposition, has a policy. [Interruption.] I assure Opposition Members that I intend to speak about our policies at some length. I am happy to do so because at least we have a pensions policy.
I should very much like to know whether basic pension plus—the £150 billion plan to privatise the pension system—is still Conservative party policy, or whether it was junked by the deputy leader when he threw out the Thatcherite baggage that the Conservative party was saddled with. I note from the press that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is apparently at daggers drawn with the deputy leader of the Tory party. Perhaps because of that quarrel, he cannot tell us whether basic pension plus—even the mention of those words seems to upset Conservative Members—is still party policy.
We inherited a mess. The problem was not just the absence of a pensions policy from the previous Government. We also inherited the problems caused by the mis-selling of pensions to 2.5 million people. The Conservative Government were active participants in that, through their television advertisements, persuading people wrongly to transfer to personal pensions. We inherited an environment with poor regulation and had to set up the new Financial Services Authority.
The Conservatives imposed VAT on fuel, which we reduced to 5 per cent. They abolished free eye tests for pensioners. We reinstated them. The Conservatives decimated concessionary travel and had a good go at decimating all bus travel. We had to restore it. They neglected the health service—indeed, some of them still want to privatise it. We have invested —19 billion more in it. Even on that, the Conservatives are divided. The shadow Chancellor told us that that investment in the health service was too much. The deputy leader of the Tory party now tells us that it is just about right. We have had to sort out the economic mess that we inherited, with high inflation damaging to pensioners. We now have the lowest ever rate of corporation tax, which helps pension funds, and economic stability, which helps pensioners.
Interestingly, the Conservatives have also not mentioned the difficulty that we inherited with their policy on the state earnings-related pension scheme and the reduction of widows' entitlement. For nine years after 1986, when the Conservatives cut the widows' entitlement to SERPS, not a single Department of Social Security leaflet referred to what they had done. Perhaps there is a simple reason why we have not heard a cheep out of them about that this

afternoon: many of the DSS Ministers during those nine years are still representing the Conservative party at the highest level. The people who knew that the policy had been changed but who chose not to tell the public include the leader of the Tory party—who was a social security Minister in 1993—the deputy leader of the Tory party, the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who is jumping ship—

Mr. Eric Pickles: rose—

Mr. Darling: Just a moment. That is not all. The list also includes the right hon. Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). All those Conservative Members were in the DSS during that time and did not see fit to alter the departmental leaflets to tell pensioners what was happening. That is another mess that the Labour Government have to sort out.

Mr. Pickles: When instructions went out to officers about that problem on 12 January this year, why did the Government make no mention of looking again at the advice that had been given to people? Why was that not included in the memo? The right hon. Gentleman is complaining about others not taking action. Why has he not addressed the problem himself?

Mr. Darling: I caution the hon. Gentleman against relying too heavily on Conservative party press releases as an authoritative source of anything. We are having to sort out the problem and ensure that the proper information is given.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred to the problems with the national insurance recording system computer. Who signed the contract with Andersen—a contract whose difficulties we are having to sort out? It was the Conservative party.
Before I deal with our proposals, I remind the House that we have heard nothing about the Tories' pension plans. With perhaps two years to go before the next election, one might have thought that they would turn their minds to some alternative if they do not think that our proposals are acceptable.

Mr. Robert Key: The right hon. Gentleman is worried about it.

Mr. Darling: I am not worried about it, but the hon. Gentleman ought to be. I would be deeply worried if I belonged to a party that had not even thought about the next election because it still could not come to terms with what had happened at the previous one.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State again tries to shift the burden of blame. His party, in government, has been responsible for the implementation of NIRS2. The report of the Public Accounts Committee said:
In view of the potential impact of the delay on benefit recipients and the pensions industry, we think that contingency planning should have been given greater priority at a much earlier stage.
That is an indictment of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Darling: I interpreted that report in another way: one might have thought that, in 1996, when the contract was entered into, some thought would have been given to what would happen if a changeover were designed so that the old system had to be entirely switched off in the hope that the new system would operate from day one.
The final part of our inheritance, which is, perhaps, the most damning indictment of the Conservatives' 18-year term of government, is that one in three people now working faces retirement on means-tested benefits by 2050. We produced our proposals to deal with that problem and, unlike any other proposals in recent memory, they have been almost universally accepted by those who responded to them.

Mr. David Bendel: I want to return, for a moment, to SERPS. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have great sympathy with him because his Government have been left with an appalling problem that will be difficult to solve. However, does he not accept that his Government must take a share of the blame because, although the brochures were changed in 1996, for a year and a half after Labour took power, the letters that his Department sent out still gave the wrong information?

Mr. Darling: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point: we have to clear up the difficulties that have been caused. There is no doubt about that, and we shall do it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Say sorry.

Mr. Darling: Opposition Members want me to say sorry, but the root cause of the problem is that, for nine years, those in government—who, as I said, included the highest echelons of the present Tory party—did nothing to ensure that the right information was given. We shall sort out that problem, but the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will have to wait until the Government have decided how best to proceed.
I turn now to our proposals, which were published in our Green Paper last year. As I said, it is interesting that, unlike the Conservative Government's proposals, which were made at the fag-end of the previous Parliament and collapsed within 24 hours of being announced, our principles and approach have been almost universally accepted. We received more than 500 responses, of which the vast majority agreed that our approach to the new state second pension, to funded pensions for moderate and high earners and to the new stakeholder pension is right.
Having established the principles, it is now necessary to get right the details. I make no bones about the fact that we are consulting because the pensions industry depends on a partnership between the Government, pension providers and individuals. It is important to get the details right, and I welcome the fact that the industry is keenly engaged in that discussion.
We are building on what is good about the current system. We are supporting occupational pensions. We introduced proposals to simplify regulations, which will help. We want to encourage the take-up of personal pensions, where appropriate, and the building of personal savings. We want to build a partnership between the state and the individual, moving from the present relationship

in which 60 per cent. of pension provision is public and 40 per cent. private, to one, by 2050, in which 40 per cent. is publicly provided and 60 per cent. is private.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to get the details right, and the House can understand that, but what is his overarching aim? Does he want to encourage self-provision, or not? If he does, how will increasing the proportion of people who will ultimately be caught up in means-testing achieve that aim?

Mr. Darling: We are reducing that proportion, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. I shall answer his question by setting out our actions, because his remark is specifically directed at the new minimum income guarantee. That is the target, or basic standard of decency, that we want people to beat.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about my overriding objective. What I want to do is ensure that all who can save do save. My proposals make provision for everyone: everyone will have the option of saving, and we want to encourage everyone to do so. We recognise that some people will not be able to save enough, for whatever reason, which is why we are introducing the minimum income guarantee. I understand that the Conservative party opposes the guarantee. Conservative Members nod, so I must be right.
Without the guarantee, this year alone 1.5 million pensioners would be £160 a year worse off. That does not strike me as very sensible, but if the Conservatives' policy is to ensure that 1.5 million people are £160 a year worse off, that is a matter for them. Labour Members believe that a minimum income guarantee, uprated each year in line with earnings—as announced by the Chancellor earlier this year—will ensure a basic, decent standard of living for the poorest pensioners. We have inherited a good many pensioners who are poor. But I want pensioners to do better than that—

Mr. Duncan Smith: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose

Mr. Darling: I will give way now, but, after that, I shall explain how our proposals will enable pensioners to do better.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will give way to his boss.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State has not replied to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). A written answer given to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—who I see is present—on 13 April makes it clear that, as a result of the Secretary of State's minimum income guarantee, a pensioner retiring in 15 years' time would require an extra £15,000 to stay above the level for the guarantee, or £19,000 in 1999 prices. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to pensioners who know that they cannot make it, and that they will be sucked back into dependency?

Mr. Darling: I would say two things. Because of the neglect of the past 20 years, in the next few years, many


pensioners will not be able to save enough to retire on a level above the minimum income guarantee. We recognise that, but, according to the hon. Gentleman's logic, we should not help people at all: we should say, "Tough luck—we are not going to uprate your benefit." The hon. Gentleman does not understand. If the minimum income guarantee is uprated merely in line with prices, rather than in line with earnings, it follows that many pensioners will be worse off than they would otherwise have been.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: Not just now; I want to make some progress. This is an Opposition day debate, and I assume that Opposition Members wish to speak in it.
Let me set out the proposals that will, I believe, enable people to do better than the minimum income guarantee. There is already a universal basic state pension, but we are introducing a new state second pension, which will help people on low incomes to save enough to retire above the level of the guarantee. It will also tackle one of the other weaknesses in the current system. Under the state earnings-related pension scheme, those who do not earn very much will not receive very much. We are providing significant new help for people earning less than £9,000 a year. For example, the contributions made by someone earning £6,000 a year would give that person £13 a week under SERPS; under the new state second pension, he or she would receive £46 a week, an increase of £33.
Opposition Members should look at table 5 on page 41 of the Green Paper. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has been consistently wrong about the state second pension, because he patently does not understand how it works. If he acquires a copy of the Green Paper from the Vote Office, he will see that the state second pension will be of huge benefit to people on low incomes. It also provides new help for carers and disabled people with broken work records, allowing them to build up a second pension as of right.
We need to do more than just reform the state system, however. We believe that most moderate and higher earners will be better off on funded pensions—occupational pensions, or private pensions. But we are determined to create the right framework: not everyone can secure an occupational pension and, for many people, private pensions are not appropriate. To plug that gap, we are introducing the new stakeholder pension schemes, providing minimum standards, flexibility and simplicity in order to ensure that those who do not have the option of an occupational pension, or for whom a personal private pension is inappropriate, have an extra savings option.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned advice. It has always been our case—I have said this time and again, especially when we were in opposition—that people should obtain advice before signing a pensions contract. Taking out a pension is arguably far more important than buying a house. The repercussions could be substantial, and people need good advice, as is clearly demonstrated by the pensions mis-selling scandal that the Tories allowed to happen under their noses. We want to provide advice, but we want to ensure that costs are kept to a minimum for the benefit of future members of stakeholder pension schemes.
The Green Paper made it clear that, in addition to the trustee structure, we wanted to consider alternative forms of governance. The hon. Member for Chingford and

Woodford Green tried to make something of that, too. I have already suggested that he should read the Green Paper. He should also have a go at reading the relevant Bill.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no mention of alternative forms of governance other than trustees. There is, at paragraph 38, on page 55 of the Green Paper. Furthermore, clause 1(2) refers to other forms of governance, in addition to the trustee structure. I am astonished that he did not know that. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford looks puzzled. Perhaps if he had talked less and read more in Committee, he might have seen that we had provided for it. We have always said—

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Darling: I cannot resist it.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Once again he has completely misunderstood what I said. Of course the Bill is so drafted that the Government take powers by secondary legislation to do anything. It states one thing, and then gives a power to relax that provision if the Government wish to do so in secondary legislation. It is clear in the Bill that no other structure for stakeholder pensions is provided for or mentioned, apart from the trust structure. That remains the case.

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, let me read out the relevant provision in the Bill. With reference to the conditions for stakeholder schemes, it states:
The first condition is that the scheme is established under a trust or in such other way as may be prescribed.
That is precisely what was stated in the Green Paper. It is astonishing that Opposition Members have not read it.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred to my interview in the Financial Times. I am glad that a number of my remarks there have been welcomed by people in the industry, as they can see that the Government are working constructively with them to ensure that the system operates successfully. I have made it clear that the Government are open to suggestions for alternative forms of governance. We have ideas that we are examining, and we have asked people in the industry whether they have specific measures in mind. I know that there has been some concern about group personal pensions.
I am happy to consider alternative forms of governance, so long as they provide the level of security that we believe trustees could give to stakeholder pensions. The Government's concern is to ensure that the interests of members of pensions schemes are properly protected. That is our main objective, and that is why I am willing to listen to whatever the industry has to say. I am happy to work constructively with the industry on this and any other subject.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister said a few moments ago that he supported occupational pensions. Quite apart from the fact that the new stakeholder pension threatens to act as a disincentive to employers to offer occupational pensions, which is a serious problem associated with the


stakeholder pension, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend tax credits, the future pensions of those in occupational schemes could fall by up to 10 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that might explain why the chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries, Paul Thornton, said in March last year that the Government must stop loosening the hitherto solid foundations of occupational pensions?

Mr. Darling: The Government are not doing that. I did not read those particular remarks, but I recall that what the actuaries said in July 1997 was rather different from what they were saying 12 months later. One of the effects of the reform of corporation tax is that we now have the lowest rate of corporation tax that the country has ever had. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that. After 18, years they did not manage to reduce corporation tax that far.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred to pooled pension investments and suggested that the Treasury had magicked them up out of nowhere. We have discussed the matter before. The plans for pooled pension investments were being worked up when I was a Minister at the Treasury. I 'was aware of them, which is why the Green Paper—if Conservative Members would care to read it—made it abundantly clear at paragraph 39 on page 55 that pooled pension investments would be proposed in a consultation paper that would be announced shortly. I have made it clear that my view of compulsion, which is set out at paragraph 13 on page 81 the Green Paper, is that, at present, there is no justification for it, for the reasons that are clearly stated.
This pensions reform is designed to cover the next 50 years, but we are also anxious to ensure that we help today's pensioners. I have mentioned the minimum income guarantee; the Conservatives are no doubt pledged to get rid of it, which would cost many poor pensioners dear. We want to look at the capital and income rules to ensure that we do not penalise people who save. I should point out that, from April next year, the poorest pensioner couples could be getting £400 a year more than under the previous Government. It is a pity that the Conservatives are set on reversing that.
I make no apologies for the minimum income guarantee, because it is an effective way of reducing pensioner poverty as quickly as possible. Although pensioner incomes overall have increased since we came to office—thanks, in no small part, to occupational pensions—many pensioners are on low incomes and the minimum income guarantee is designed to ensure that they receive significant help. We are determined to extend that.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he accept what he has never accepted in the past and what I firmly believe to be true? The poorest pensioners are those who are not on income support; those who could be on income support, but are not receiving it for one reason or another; and those who cannot be on income support because of their savings. They will not benefit at all from the minimum income guarantee.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman keeps raising that point and I keep giving the same answer—he might want

to look at it again. The Government are aware that, because of the present capital and income rules, many pensioners who have modest savings or a modest income stream are adversely affected by the benefits system. We said in the Green Paper that we are determined to tackle that, but one thing that the Liberals really have to—[Interruption.] The Tories were in power for 18 years and did nothing about that.
One thing that the Liberals really have to grasp is that people in government must face the fact that they have to fund the things that they want to do, and it is not always possible to do everything we want on day one. The hon. Gentleman has his policy for a penny on income tax; as we know from our debates on social security, let alone other subjects, he has spent it many times over; but he will have to face the fact that Governments cannot do that.
The House should bear in mind the fact that we have increased the winter fuel payment fivefold—to £100 from this winter—which will help all pensioners, but particularly the poorest. Through the minimum tax guarantee, we have taken two thirds of pensioners out of tax altogether, something that the previous Government did not do at all.
We are supporting today's pensioners, addressing some of the problems that we inherited and reforming pension provision for the next 50 years. Our pension proposals have been widely—almost universally—welcomed. We are now moving to the second stage to ensure that the detail is right and the system is affordable, sustainable and, above all, workable. We are fine-tuning the details and we are on exactly the course that we set out in our Green Paper in December.
I am confident that, by the end of this Parliament, pension provision and structure will be set on a firm footing that will serve this country well for generations to come. By contrast, the Tories have shown today that they have absolutely nothing to say and have no proposals of their own. They clearly have not even read the Green Paper or the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which is going through Parliament. Their criticisms, therefore, are entirely misplaced. Our proposals are radical, realistic and, above all, the right thing to do. I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr. David Rendel: First, I wish to associate myself and my party with the tributes to Derek Fatchett, who so sadly died at the weekend.
In talking about pensions, it is always important to respect the fact that two aspects must be considered—the long term and the short term. It should be remembered that some of the things that we could do about the short-term aspects of pensions provision for current pensioners might also help to solve some of the problems that the Government face in trying to rectify the long-term problems.
On the long-term issues, we must remember four things. First, it is important that, in the long term, pensions apply universally. One of the great problems is that too many people, for one reason or another, do not have an adequate pension provision. We must ensure that, whatever policies we introduce for the long term, they are universal, so that everyone has sufficient income to live on in retirement.
Secondly, we must make sure that money invested in pensions—through private pension funds, stakeholder pensions or elsewhere—provides good value for money and a reasonable return on the investment to encourage people, as far as possible, to put aside enough money when they are of working age to look after themselves in their retirement.
Thirdly, it is important that our long-term plans are reliable. One of the difficulties with pension provision over the past few years has been that, all too often, legislation introduced by one Government has been changed later by another Government. That is precisely what happened with the state earnings-related pension scheme, and that is one reason why it has hit so many problems.
Fourthly, whatever legislation is introduced and whatever provision for pensions may exist, it is important that pensions are relatively easy to understand, and that there is good education on how to invest and provide oneself with the best possible pension for the future.
The first problem with pensions is one that neither of the other two main parties has addressed properly—it is the oldest who are the poorest. Almost invariably, the oldest pensioners turn out to be the poorest pensioners. One in three of those over 75 is living in poverty. For a modern society, that is a shameful situation which we need to address as quickly as we can.
The second problem is that it is often the women in our society who are the poorest—first, because women usually live longer, and therefore tend to be the majority of the older pensioners, and, secondly, because many women have tended to rely on their husbands for their pension provision, whether through the state system or through private or occupational pensions; when the husband dies, those pensions are reduced in one way or another, and widows often find that the pension provision with which they are left is too small for their real needs. The abolition of the widows bereavement allowance will not help; nor will halving the additional SERPS pensions next year.
On that issue, I was sorry that the Secretary of State did not have the grace earlier to accept that there is a problem, which the Labour party must face, with what happened in the first year and a half of Labour's time in office. The right hon. Gentleman would be on stronger ground in his accusations about the Conservatives—which are well founded, as there is no question but that the lion's share of the blame for the problems with which he is faced in terms of SERPS lies with the previous Governmentif he were prepared to admit that, in the first year and a half of his party's time in government, the letters from the Department were still giving the wrong information, in spite of the fact that the Department was well aware by that time of the situation, since it had, in 1996, changed the booklets that were going out.
There is an issue there. My understanding now is that pressure was put on civil servants in the Department to do something about that, and to change the instructions about what letters were sent out, but the pressure was not enough. No one took a grip of the situation. No one forced the issue and ensured that it was dealt with early enough. As a result, the difficulty went on for much longer than it should have after the present Government took control.
It is a great pity that the Secretary of State is not prepared to admit that. As I say, in talking about the issue, his hand would be strengthened if he were prepared to admit that there was a problem in the first months in which the Labour party was in office.
Thirdly, too much of what the Government are doing will, sadly, discourage people from saving, particularly the fact that pensioners' savings will not be taxed at the 10p rate. In effect, there will often be an unearned income surcharge on pensioners. That will only hinder people and discourage them from providing for themselves through savings.
Fourthly, I come to the minimum income guarantee. Again, to a large extent, the guarantee is a fraud on pensioners because it is not any sort of guarantee of a minimum income for them. The poorest pensioners, those who are not on income support, will not get the minimum income guarantee. They will still live below income support levels—even the lower level of income support that people have been used to.
It is wrong of the Government to claim that, simply by introducing a minimum income guarantee, they will solve the problems of poverty among pensioners. It will not happen. We know that it will not happen. The Government have to do better than that.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a fellow Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who sometimes speaks on pension issues, has raised the point that someone who is retiring who is just ahead of the minimum income level will be rapidly overtaken by the minimum income guarantee because it is in line with prices? Even those who, on retirement, are ahead of the level will get trapped because the return from their income will be less and less compared with the minimum income guarantee; so the Government are setting a huge poverty trap for later on.

Mr. Rendel: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. I was going to make a similar point later, so I will leave my precise response to his intervention until then. He is right, however. Of course, there is a great problem with the minimum income guarantee. It will not guarantee the poorest pensioners a minimum income.
In his response to my intervention, the Secretary of State made the point that he had plans at some time in the future, which is as yet unspecified, to do something about the level of savingscapitalthat people are allowed to have before they lose their income support and, therefore, their minimum income guarantee. We have said that we are delighted that he has plans to increase the figure of £8,000. He should increase it by a considerable amount to overcome the problem.
Many elderly people feel that they need considerable savings to ensure, for example, that they do not leave debts behind to their descendants, or burden them with the cost of their funerals. They want to have a little to pass on to their children from what they have earned during their lifetime.
I hope that the Secretary of State will speed up the process, which he has been telling us about for a long time, of reviewing that figure, of deciding on a new figure and of implementing it as soon as possible. It is badly needed.
The Secretary of State failed to respond to the other half of the problem: the 700,000 or so pensioners who are eligible for income support—they do not have particularly high savings—but who, for various reasons, are not claiming and receiving it. Even if he does review the capital allowance, those pensioners will still be below income support levels and living in dire poverty. His minimum income guarantee will do nothing for them.
The Secretary of State has told us that he has plans to reduce that figure, to ensure that more and more of those who are eligible for income support claim it. That, too, is welcome, but he will never be able to remove the problem altogether. He will never be able to ensure that everyone who is eligible for income support claims it. The attempt to reduce the figure is a truly Sisyphean task because, as soon he starts removing one or two from the figure and enabling them to claim their rights, he will find that more and more people are becoming eligible for income support and not claiming it. Therefore, just as some people come off the top of the list, others will join it at the bottom.
I should be prepared to bet that, however hard the Secretary of State works on the problem, the 700,000 figure will never be reduced to anything approaching a manageable level, and that hundreds of thousands of people will be eligible for income support, but will not claim it. Those people will therefore not be eligible for the minimum income guarantee, but will still be living in the most dire poverty. Unless he can overcome that specific problem, the minimum income guarantee will not overcome the more general problems.
I should spend a minute or two considering the Conservative policy—or, as the Secretary of State has rightly said, the Conservative non-policy. One of the tragic aspects of the current situation is that, so far, Conservative Members have told us only that—at some time, one hopes before the next general election—they will produce a pensions policy.

Mr. Leigh: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?

Mr. Rendel: I shall, if I may, describe it in a moment.
Pensions plus seems long since to have sunk without trace. The Conservatives also have to accept that, by breaking the basic state pensions link with earnings, they have caused many of the current problems of pensioner poverty.
As for Labour—as the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said a moment ago—the minimum income guarantee will rise in line with earnings, thereby creating a problem for the Government as the gap between the minimum income guarantee and the basic state pension grows and grows.
As ever more people are covered by the minimum income guarantee, an inevitable consequence will be more means testing. It is inevitable also that ever fewer people will feel that private pensions are worth it. Increasingly, people who have saved into some form of private pension will discover that they are still below the minimum income guarantee level, but that anything that they have provided towards their own pension has been, for them, simply money wasted. Although they will be saving taxpayers and the Exchequer a bit of money, they themselves will be no better off from paying into their own pension.
There is also a need—which the Secretary of State rather too easily glossed over—for Labour to grasp the nettle of compulsory second-tier pensions. The Government have argued that they do not want to pursue that policy because people do not have a proper vehicle into which to place their pension funds. However, that argument does not answer the question—which is the first one that should be answered—of whether compulsion is required. We believe that compulsion is necessary. Once the Government answer that question and take a decision on it, they will have to ensure that appropriate vehicles are available. Simply saying that such vehicles are not yet available does not answer the compulsion question.
What is the way forward? We have to accept a number of facts. The first one is that the average age of our population is rising, and that the number of people of pension age is growing.
Secondly, we have to acknowledge that people are remaining active for longer. Therefore, when examining long-term pension provision, we have to ensure that people have flexibility—particularly in deciding their retirement age—in pension provision. Some people may be able to remain active and in work for much longer than they do now. If they are prepared to do so, that will help us in providing for pensions. We—and any pension policy that we introduce—should make allowances for that.
Thirdly, we should accept that there is a real need for cross-party consensus in addressing the pensions issue. For some time, I have been asking for consensus, and suggesting that the three main political parties should get together and try to talk through the various issues. Unfortunately, so far, the requests have not met with agreement from the other two parties. Nevertheless, I hope that they will accept the need for consensus on the issue. If we simply continue the cross-party dogfight on the issue and refuse to accept that other parties have a worthwhile point of view on it, we can be sure as hell that legislation introduced now will be overturned by a future Government, whoever they may be. That is no way to deal with long-term pensions for our population.
We shall be letting down our people if we are not prepared to come together and hammer out a cross-party consensus on a realistic and long-lasting pensions policy which, if we introduce it now, will last through future Governments and be properly implemented when those pensions become payable. I make a strong plea for cross-party consensus on these issues. The SERPS fiasco has demonstrated how necessary that is.
We have to accept the need for greater saving. We are simply not putting away enough to look after our needs when we have all retired. We also have to accept the need for compulsion. Sadly, human beings all too readily spend now, rather than put away money for their future. We propose a compulsory second-tier pensions policy. We made that plain last year when we passed the policy through our conference. We need the right vehicles for that policy, and those should be found as soon as possible.
The policy should apply to both the employed and the self-employed, and there should be a scheme under which the Government can ensure that credits are paid, perhaps at the lower earnings limit level, on behalf of those who are non-earners because, for example, they are carers.

Mr. Darling: We already do that.

Mr. Rendel: The Government's policy contains something similar to that, but the scheme is not


compulsory, so it fails the vital test of ensuring that everybody has a pension that is good enough to look after their needs in the long term.

Mr. Leigh: What does the hon. Gentleman estimate that the increase in national insurance or in tax will have to be to pay for a compulsory second pension, and what impact will that have on the popularity of any Government who propose it?

Mr. Rendel: It does not sound as though the hon. Gentleman understood the policy that I was proposing, as it had nothing to do with increasing national insurance or tax. [Laughter.]

Mr. Duncan Smith: Cross-party consensus.

Mr. Rendel: I am delighted that I have created at least a two-party consensus, but I was not talking about a second-tier pension based on national insurance. I am not sure what the intervention was about.

Ms Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that it should be compulsory for the state to provide a second pension, but the idea of compulsion usually applies to the person who has to pay for the pension. If we compel people to contribute to a pension, what sanctions will there be for those who refuse?

Mr. Rendel: There are obviously means of forcing people to pay tax, and the same means could be used to make them pay into a pension fund.

Ms Keeble: How much?

Mr. Rendel: Clearly, the rates of compulsory second-tier pensions would have to be fixed when the legislation was introduced. Our feeling is that we could start at a level equivalent to the current SERPS contributions, so there would be no real increase, but that, once the system was in place, we could increase the contributions as required to ensure that people saved enough to look after themselves properly.
We can do something straight away for the current pensioners, to help to overcome the problem of the gap between the minimum income guarantee and the basic state pension. As the most elderly pensioners are, on the whole, the poorest, we should introduce an extra age payment of £3 a week for the over-75s and £5 for the over-80s.
That would be an affordable start, and the extra payment should be increased beyond that as soon as possible. I am sorry that the Government did not introduce such a payment in the Budget, as it would certainly have helped them to overcome some of the problems in their own proposals on the long-term future of pensioners. In the past few weeks and months, I have travelled around the country advancing that proposal, and it has met with warm acceptance the length and breadth of the land. I hope, therefore, that the Government will adopt it, and earn for themselves the popularity that they would get if they introduced it.
The pensioners of our country have been betrayed by both the present Government and the previous Government. Many of the poorest people are our

pensioners and, in particular, our older pensioners. We need to end the party politicking on the subject and to get together to achieve a consensus about which policies should be introduced for the long term. We need to take action urgently to help today's pensioners, who are among the poorest in our country.

Mr. Tony Colman: I support the Government amendment, but first I wish to declare an interest as the former chair of the United Kingdom standing committee on local authority pension funds. I chaired that body up until last year.
The Putney and Roehampton organisation of pensioners met my hon. Friend the Minister of State last week and urged on him the restoration of the earnings link. However, after he told those pensioners the costs that would be involved and reassured them that the Government wished to ensure that the poorest pensioners in the community were dealt with first, they left convinced. Perhaps Opposition Members have not met their pensioners' groups. Mine was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the review of how much capital could be held before it affected the amount of the minimum income guarantee that could be drawn down. My local pensioners were also pleased to hear about the work that was being done in tracking down those people who would benefit from the minimum income guarantee but who are not at the moment registered for it—the 700,000 mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel).
I support the changes to corporation tax. A few months after I became a Member of Parliament, I wrote a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating the extra sums that would be needed for local authority pension funds, following the changes to ACT. That letter, I am glad to say, was unnecessary, because the stock market has risen and companies have benefited enormously from the removal of ACT from pension funds. The dampener on companies has been removed and, as a result, we have seen a tremendous change—as my hon. Friend the Secretary of State put it—in the way that companies relate to their owners, the pension funds.
One issue that I pursued strongly as the chair of the local authority pension funds committee was the need to ensure that those members who had previously been direct employees of local authorities, but were becoming employees of private sector firms under best-value regimes, should be able to remain members of the local authority pension funds. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up that point, because the right to remain a member was negotiated over a long time by representatives of the local authority trade unions, by the Confederation of British Industry committee set up to examine the issue and by the local authorities. A solution was worked out and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions had blessed the arrangement. However, I understand from Public Treasurer today that the arrangements have been turned down by the Inland Revenue, which is concerned that the tax-exempt status that would apply to private sector schemes should not be allowed. I want to ensure that the introduction of best-value arrangements is not held up as a result, as I am sure that the Government and all hon. Members support it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will assure the House that any problems have been, or are being, resolved.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work on ethical investments in the context of the financial regulatory system. In particular, I congratulate him on his recent speech, in which he proposed requiring trustees of pension funds to make a statement of the ethical and environmental principles according to which investments are made.
Not all hon. Members will agree that that is the best way forward, but I strongly support the democratic basis of the proposal, which would render pension fund trustees accountable to their members. I remind the House that many of the ethical funds have achieved significantly higher returns than their non-ethical counterparts. Although I do not suggest that it should be mandatory, I would welcome a clear statement from trustees about the way forward for their pension fund.
I presented a Bill in the previous Session requiring independent financial advisers, as part of the regulatory regime, to ask the ethical question—whether the individual investor or pension fund wanted an investment placed in an ethical or environmental fund. I realise that there is a background of mis-selling in the pensions industry and among some independent financial advisers. However, those independent advisers have now put their house in order, and it is important that they are supported. We must ensure that one of the choices that they offer is that of ethical and environmental investment.
To sum up, let me say that although my pensioner constituents want the earnings link restored, they understand that poorer pensioners are the priority. Moreover, the corporation tax changes have been of great benefit to the pension funds—the owners of the major companies in the country. I applaud the moves on ethical investment, and I hope that the regulatory regime for independent financial advisers will include among their routine requirements the need to ask the ethical question. The pensions industry and the independent financial advisers have largely sorted themselves out and it is important that the House should welcome them as partners in taking forward the provision of pensions.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I think that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) felt, when I intervened in his speech, that I was trying to be unfair to him or to make a party political point. On the contrary: I think that the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate was very fair, and I want to add to his remarks.
Since the second world war, the development of pensions policy in this country has been a notable failure of public policy making. The basic pension developed by Sir William Beveridge stood the test of time until the link with earnings was broken in the 1980s. At first sight, it was a very effective instrument. It provided the elderly with a degree of security and ensured that most people were required to set aside an adequate amount for their pensions. At the same time, the occupational pension movement developed satisfactorily.
The problem came with the break with earnings. I know that, as soon as I say that, some Members on the Government Benches will be tempted to point out that the Government whom I supported made the break. However, the present Government have accepted that the break was

essential, however it was done. Since then, however, the basic pension has been untenable, and it will decline rapidly in value. It is clear that something must be done.
I regret that we did not identify that problem earlier. I had no complaint about the basic pension plus proposal advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) when he was Secretary of State for Social Security. However, his proposal was made right at the end of the period of Conservative government, and it was difficult at that stage to imbue it with all the authority that a Government proposal should have. The politicking of the time did not help.
There was nothing wrong with the basic pension plus proposal, and I commend it to my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) as they develop our policy. We can tinker with the details. I accept that the scheme may not have been fully satisfactory, but the basic philosophy of privatising the pensions industry was, and remains, right. It is the only way in which we shall make progress.
The hon. Member for Newbury was feeling his way in his speech towards radical reform. However, that radical reform must involve some compulsion. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it might not entail any increase in national insurance contributions or taxation, and said that, under his system, people would see their contributions going into a funded scheme and would not consider those contributions to be increases in taxation or national insurance. In reality, however, that is how people would perceive the scheme. It would take a very courageous Government to insist on that.

Mr. Rendel: Yes, it would.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman agrees that only a courageous Government could insist, particularly given the decline in the value of annuities, that people should put by the requisite amount every month for an adequately funded scheme,
The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that I agree with him on two points. We shall make progress only if there is some compulsion and only if there is some cross-party co-operation. Sadly, because of the way in which our politics is organised, I doubt whether the cross-party co-operation needed to create a new pension scheme along the lines that he suggested can be achieved. That is not how the House works. The adversarial system has stood us in good stead for many years and I doubt whether we can achieve some great cross-party consensus on a pension plan that will stand the test of time for 10, 15 or 20 Parliaments, but that is what we would need if the hon. Gentleman's scheme were to have any chance of success.
What can we do? I shall make a proposal in the hope that the next Conservative Government—whenever they come—will have the courage to pick up the ball and run with it. That Government must have the courage to try to create a proper funded scheme for all sections of the population.
I want to be fair to the Government. I understand what they are trying to achieve. The Government rightly hold the view that no pensioner, even a pensioner who has not


made adequate contributions, should live on less than £75 a week. That is why they have introduced the minimum income guarantee. I understand that.
It is easy to be critical of people, but there may be good reasons why people have not managed to put aside adequate savings for their old age. It may not be a matter of fault. I am philosophically sympathetic to the concept that every pensioner should have some minimum income guarantee. I understand why the Government propose it. The difficulty that immediately faces the House as it tries to grapple with pensions policy once it has agreed a minimum income guarantee is this: how on earth are we to encourage people on relatively modest incomes to put aside money for their old age?
One of the most telling points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was that the number of people in receipt of means-tested benefits would rise from one in five of the population to one in three. I do not criticise the Government for trying to drag people out of poverty. That is a noble aim but, once they have made the decision to ensure that everyone receives a minimum income in their old age, how will they stop ever-larger numbers of people being reduced to reliance on means-tested benefits, which many people still view with a great deal of horror? The Government have no answer to that point.
One can forgive the Government for many things. One can forgive them for the disaster with the NIRS2 computer. One can forgive them for the SERPS disaster and the wrong letters that were sent out. We all know that we are entitled to criticise them, but that they can pass the blame back to previous Governments. Yet, when the Labour party was in opposition, articulate spokesmen such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tried to convince us that it had within its grasp the holy grail of pensions policy; that it could both take people out of poverty and take people out of means-tested benefits.

Mr. Bercow: Can my hon. Friend reassure me that he has not gone soft and that he certainly does not forgive the Labour party for its calculated misrepresentation of the basic pension plus proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)?

Mr. Leigh: I was trying not to be too party political. I wanted to get some sort of sensible debate running, but of course my hon. Friend is right. The Labour party could not resist the opportunity, so intent was it on regaining power, to use any untruth—I must use the word "lie", Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am not referring to any individual Member of the House, so I hope that you will not mind me doing so—against my right hon. Friend's proposals. That was a tragedy. It has soured the debate. What went on in the few days after my right hon. Friend proposed the scheme makes it difficult to achieve any rational or sensible debate.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newbury, even though he has not costed his proposals. It is dangerous for any party that wishes to become a party of government to come to the House with uncosted proposals. It is not good enough for a potential party of government to deal in soundbites. It should present practical proposals. The hon. Gentleman failed to do so.
The only practical radical solution of which I can conceive—we have not had one from the Government—is some move towards compelling people to put a

proportion of their income into a privately funded scheme if they do not already have a satisfactory private or occupational pension. I see that the hon. Member for Newbury is nodding. Is he doing so because he agrees with the proposal that I am making? If so, although he may disagree with some aspects of the proposal advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden as Secretary of State for Social Security, does he accept my right hon. Friend's basic philosophical approach? If the hon. Gentleman accepts that, we have already achieved an element of cross-party consensus.

Mr. Rendel: I am still not clear whether the hon. Gentleman understands my proposals. He mentioned costings. A compulsory second-tier pension, based on individuals' saving from their earnings from employment, has no cost to the Government; that is why it does not need to be costed. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understood that point. That is one reason why there is no need to raise the issue of costings. However, if we are talking about credits for non-earners, there will be a cost; that is why such a scheme would have to be introduced slowly.

Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem for non-earners, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Anyone who takes a serious interest in pensions has to argue a way through that problem. Many people are quite incapable of making adequate provision for their old age—that may not be their fault. However, the hon. Gentleman makes my point. I did not misunderstand his proposals, because, under his proposals—and, indeed, under my proposals—people will be told that they are required to devote an increased proportion of their weekly or monthly income to their pension. That would have to go through Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman may argue that that would not be an increase in taxation, because the money would come out of people's incomes and be placed in a funded scheme, but people would consider it to be an increase in taxation. Every month, they would see that in the amount left available to them. That is what people care about; when people are in their 20s, 30s or 40s, they do not care about pensions, they care about paying the mortgage and looking after their children. If Parliament tells them that they must pay an increased amount, they will not worry whether it is listed in the coding for their monthly tax. They will blame us—or the hon. Gentleman if he is in government—for proposing it.

Mr. Rendel: It is clear to most of us who already put money into an occupational pensions scheme that our wage slip shows a basic salary amount, and that amounts are taken off for tax, national insurance and pension. The only change would be that the amount taken off for pension would be rather higher.

Mr. Leigh: In this House, we are fortunate because we are members of a most satisfactory occupational pension scheme. The first point that the hon. Gentleman must address is that not everyone works for the state or for large employers. Many people have only casual or low-paid work. Under his scheme—and, to be fair, my scheme too, because I am not ducking the problem—many people will not be paying money into an excellent


occupational pensions scheme, and, in the case of the House's scheme, a heavily subsidised one; they will be paying into a private pensions scheme, while annuities are falling. That is what this House would require people on extremely low incomes to do. If one enjoys the relative affluence of a Member of Parliament with a relatively good salary, it is easy to contribute a certain proportion of that salary to an excellent occupational pension scheme. However, if people are earning only £10,000 or £15,000 a year, like many of my constituents in the north of England, and Parliament tells them that they must pay 4, 5, 6 or even 8 per cent. of their salary into a new pension scheme, there will be a massive row. That is the real world in which we all live.
To be fair to the Government, that is why they have had to come up with a chaotic response. I do not blame them for that, because, above all, they are members of a party of power and they want to remain in power. They know, therefore, that they must try to hide their intentions by introducing a scheme that confuses even those Members of the House who take an interest in social security.
I wonder whether there is a single Member of Parliament, apart from those who sit on the Front Benches and on the relevant Select Committees, who has a detailed understanding of the nature of the Government's second pension scheme or their stakeholder pension scheme, or a detailed knowledge of their implications. I suspect that there are very few such Members. If the average Member of Parliament, who assiduously reads through a daily postbag and all the briefings from the Whips Office and other sources, does not understand all those schemes, how can the public be expected to understand them?
I fear that the Government have lost a great opportunity. It all started with the attack on advance corporation tax, for, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear in his intervention, that attack has dramatically reduced the attractiveness of occupational pension schemes. That attack has continued and I believe that, among those who are the target group for the Government's stakeholder pensions—those earning about £15,000 a year—there will be a continuing flight from occupational pensions, which are the best sort of pensions, into stakeholder pensions.
I might be among those all-too-ignorant Members of Parliament who have insufficient understanding of these matters, but I am not clear how the second pension will operate as it replaces SERPS for those earning less than £9,000 a year. I only know that the high hopes engendered among the British public by all that they were told before the election are being lost. As we tinker with the pensions system, we add to the delay and we lose what should have been a most marvellous opportunity.

Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a shame that few hon. Members are present, because pensions are one of the most important issues facing us. It is a particular shame that, having called a useful debate, the Opposition have not turned up in any great number.

Mr. Tim Collins: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Ms Keeble: No, I shall not. I did say that I regretted that there were few hon. Members in total present, but noted that, although the Conservatives called this important debate, they have not turned up.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance: is it in order for the hon. Lady to castigate Conservative Members for poor attendance when there are only three Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

Ms Keeble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I held two interesting consultations on the Government's proposals in my constituency, one with pensioner groups and the other with people who are in work. I should like to express my gratitude to Nationwide for having provided the facilities to allow us to discuss with its employees the financial arrangements and the life style that they wanted in their retirement, and how they envisaged achieving them. Some of the major issues that arose were very much in line with the thinking that underlies the Government's proposals.
The employees, who were of all ages, realised that self-provision was the way of the future: they did not expect all their financial needs to be met by the state, but expected by and large to provide for themselves. They did not think of that as punitive, but preferred it because it meant that they could arrange their financial affairs for their retirement as they wanted to and in a way that suited their personal circumstances. However, they made it clear that they wanted the Government to provide a safety net, not only in terms of financial support when their circumstances became pressing, as so often happens when people attain great age, but in terms of services. When considering the package that they wanted for their retirement and pension, they thought as seriously about service provision and service arrangements as about financial arrangements.
The three-tier system proposed by the Government is in line with the sort of issues raised by my constituents. I believe that it will help to keep pensioners out of poverty and do so without causing undue cost to the state. I cannot remember the exact costings of the Government's proposed scheme—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will remind me of them in his winding-up speech.
My constituents—like those of all other hon. Members—want quite a high level of disposable income and do not want to be burdened with unnecessary taxation. Therefore, any pension arrangements that place an undue financial burden on those who are in work—and we have an ageing population—will not be generally accepted or welcomed.

Mr. Rendel: Of course people do not want to pay pension contributions out of their disposable incomes when they are young. However, we must accept that, as a society, we are not putting away enough for our old age.


That is why we must introduce an element of compulsion. People want to live now and pay later, but we cannot afford to let them do that. They must pay a bit more now in order to live better later.

Ms Keeble: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in the course of my speech. In discussing how much money the nation puts aside, we must ask whose money it is and where it goes. Money must be spent to provide for the destitute and for those in the greatest need. We do not want to see our pensioners living in conditions such as those endured by pensioners in countries where there is no welfare state. When I worked as a journalist abroad, I wrote a story about pensioners living in a country with no welfare state. The photographs accompanying that story depicted the appalling circumstances in which pensioners lived and were censored from the article. We never want to see similar conditions in this country.
Many people are capable of making their own pension arrangements, and they say—I have heard them—that they want to be able to do so in order to choose how to spend their money. Future pensions arrangements will be about making personal choices, with a good safety net provided by the state. That is not a particularly remarkable or controversial statement. However, such arrangements are difficult to organise, and I believe that the Government's proposals will produce that outcome.
The stakeholder pension will affect most of my constituents, as average earnings in my area are £15,000 to £16,000. That funded scheme has particular merits. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) described it as "chaotic", but the people to whom I have spoken have used the word "flexible". The hon. Gentleman might claim that people today lead chaotic lives, but I would say that their lives are perhaps less sedate and organised than in the past. People will change jobs several times, are likely to move house several times and may have several families. Their circumstances will change, and they need a pension scheme that keeps pace with their lives.
We should not talk only about the private sector as it has operated. Pension schemes must not have high administration costs. While people may not like to contribute to their own pension schemes out of their pay packets, they certainly do not want to see large sums siphoned off to pay for administration costs. People want to be able to link their savings—whatever they can afford at particular stages in their lives—with their pension arrangements later on. The Government should look closely at that issue. People clearly consider a home to be a major financial asset that should be counted as a resource in retirement.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She said a few moments ago that she wanted to minimise the burden on the taxpayer. Is the hon. Lady aware that the higher national insurance rebates designed to encourage people to take the stakeholder pension are calculated to cost the taxpayer an extra £500 million a year in the first instance, rising to £700 million a year for every additional 1 million people who opt out of the compulsory second pension? Is the hon. Lady aware of the conflict between her ambition and reality?

Ms Keeble: The reality of the Government's proposals will be a good level of state provision, giving people choice in the organisation of their finances. Different

aspects of the tax changes may mean more to some people than to others. For people in my constituency, the Government's changes so far have resulted in a lower tax burden. They have been very good for pensioners.
I agree with what Conservative Members have said about compulsion. Actually, I have been here only for the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but I agree with him and with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that it would be wrong to make contributions to a stakeholder pension compulsory. People's circumstances change and insisting on a fixed level of deduction throughout someone's working life would be wrong and would be resented. There is also a problem of practicality and the sanctions that would be applied. Positive incentives to join the stakeholder scheme, as the Government have proposed, are a better way forward than compulsion, which would make a good scheme bitterly resented and would not be remotely workable.

Mr. David Heath: Is the hon. Lady aware that we have compulsory pension schemes in the public service—in the police force and the fire brigade? Proper criticisms may be made about the use to which the money is put in not providing a funded scheme, but the schemes are compulsory for the employee. They are not resented for that because they are part of the terms and conditions that provide the eventual pension.

Ms Keeble: Yes, but for new pension arrangements, we can draw up a scheme that presents the best possible options. In a scheme that is supposed to encourage people to make extra provision for their retirement, there is no practicable way in which the Government can force everybody earning within a certain salary range—not just those working for big employers—to pay a certain amount.
Many people who make provision for their retirement greatly resent the fact that others will not do so and will rely on the state. That grievance is where some of the feeling about compulsion comes from, but the Government are right to resist it in drawing up their plans for the stakeholder pension.
The next level of pension is a second state pension. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) seemed to be proposing that. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme, which means that, if people cannot pay in, it will be topped up by the Government. The revolutionary aspect is that it will be topped up specifically for people who are looking after young children at home or those who are looking after disabled relatives and are in receipt of certain benefits. That answers the frequent complaints of Conservative Members that the Labour party does not appreciate the enormous contribution made to society by women who stay at home to look after families and that we discourage caring because we encourage people to rely on state benefits.
With our carers pension, we are telling carers that the Labour Government value their contribution and are prepared to make up their pension contributions while they are doing that important work. I shall return to that point, which is particularly important for women. That measure will influence many women in deciding whether to take a career break to look after children or ageing parents. In the past, many felt that, if they did that


extremely important work, they would be clobbered in their old age because they would be unable to keep up their pension contributions.
The minimum income guarantee will not affect very many people in my constituency because most, like others in affluent parts of the country, are fortunate enough to have work most of the time and to be paid at a rate that puts their income above the very low level that would entitle them to the minimum income guarantee. The policy is an important safety net because it gives people the assurance that, if they do not earn enough to make their own pension arrangements, they will get a pension that will ensure that they can live their lives with greater dignity than present pensioners can.
Pensioners throughout the country are in uproar about the impoverished state of many old people, but when one presses them, they are often talking not about themselves but about friends or acquaintances. The need to ensure that old people can look forward to security and a decent standard of living in their retirement is extremely important. I am particularly pleased that the minimum income guarantee takes into account the extra costs that people face when they live longer, as people now do. It guarantees an enhanced income rate for pensioners aged over 75, rather than the 25p increase that has, until now, been given to them.
The Government will not force people to live off benefits, as the Opposition's motion says; that is complete nonsense. The Government will encourage people to make provision for themselves and provide the safety nets that people want. Above all, I am pleased that, in their first couple of years in power, the Government have dealt with the major, pressing issues that have affected pensioners. They have tackled the grievance that many pensioners felt about having to pay so much in taxation. Lifting the tax threshold for each pensioner to £5,900 means that two thirds of pensioners will not now have to pay any income tax at all. Many pensioners had felt aggrieved because they had paid income tax all their lives and were still being clobbered for tax when they were having to rely on the arrangements that they had made for their old age.
The Government have also dealt with fuel poverty. Many Labour Members joined pensioner groups to campaign about that issue in the many years during which our party was in opposition. The Government have tackled that problem through the winter allowance, which was £20 when it was first introduced and is now £100, by reducing VAT and by making other arrangements for fuel charges. That deals with one of the main problems that affected many of our older people.
The Government have also taken action on the savings limit and dealt with issues relating to the health service. In my consultations, I have found that people generally expect to provide for themselves but recognise that they cannot possibly meet the extra costs caused by declining health in old age. The Government have cut eye test charges for pensioners and—this is not always recognised as a pensioners' issue—provided a huge amount of extra money to deal with the winter crisis. In most health authorities, that money has gone towards looking after pensioners during the winter, trying to ensure that they do not go into hospital but are looked after, much more appropriately, at home and, in some instances, ensuring

that special beds are opened up. The Government are trying to ensure that pensioners get the level of care that their often frailer health requires in winter. They are also dealing with the problems of long-term care, and the real issues raised by the level of nursing-homes charges.
Above all, the Government are dealing with the pressing problems experienced by female pensioners, a group that is often overlooked. The hon. Member for Gainsborough referred to the problems of the Beveridge model. One of the main problems was the assumption that the man of the house would work and support his family, and that his work would pay for the family in his old age—an assumption that ignored the fact that women live longer. Many women were left in destitution because they had made no arrangements themselves; they also experienced the humiliation of having no independent means, and being regarded as mere appendages of their husbands. I am very glad that more women can now make their own pension arrangements, having had a full career. The Government's proposals for carers pensions and for a second state pension will be particularly important to women.
Far from being the problem area that the Opposition motion claims it to be, the area of pensions is the one on which the Government can rightly claim to have made the most progress. They have dealt with massive social issues, as well as financial issues, and I believe that, in years to come, many people who are working now will be extremely glad of such arrangements when they retire.

Mr. Howard Flight: I remind the House that the growth of private-sector pension provisioning was one of the major successes of the last 20 years. In this country—unlike most other countries in the European Union—some £800,000 million of private-sector pension assets have been built up, and, as a result, UK tax rates and the proportion of the national income taken by the Government are nearly 10 per cent. lower. Some 85 per cent. of people who are now retiring already have some form of private pension; I believe that only 7 per cent. of men and 12 per cent. of women in full-time employment have no pension provision.
We have been considering those who do not already have some sort of private pension. The Government's stakeholder proposals—having finally come forth—seek to deal with that problem. I think that there is a broad cross-section of agreement in the House that as many people as possible, if not everyone, should have some form of private pension, because—as has been said today—the alternative is a massive growth in social security bills. People are living longer and longer. I was amazed to learn yesterday that, in the last decade, life expectancy has risen by a year for every four years that have passed. That is phenomenal. Moreover, there is the population bulge of which several of us, including me, are key representatives, having been born in the late 1940s and early 1950s. By 2010 or 2020, the country will have a much larger population of retired people, who will have to be provided for.
The specific issue is whether or not the Government's proposals satisfactorily address the problem of those who have no existing private pension. This very morning—I should declare an interest at this point: as many hon. Members know, I am chairman of an investment


management company—I addressed an industry conference on the Government's pension proposals and, in particular, on trying to assess what the LISA proposals are all about. The conference was attended by some hundred people, most of them representing pension product providers. Their first complaint was -that there is still considerable lack of clarity about the stakeholder scheme. We are halfway through the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill through Parliament, yet nobody knows what the LISA will be, if it comes into existence.
The Government realise that the basic stakeholder proposals involve severe cost problems. The costs are likely to be too high to meet the Government's CAT mark target and very few members of the industry are willing to provide stakeholder scheme, so the Government are going back and consulting. We do not know how even the stakeholder pension will eventually operate.
I have twice asked questions about the interregnum. The response that I got from Ministers at the Department of Social Security and at the Treasury was that the Financial Services Authority had already issued guidance to providers for the interregnum. Whatever guidance has been given, it is useless. There are major problems—for example, for companies that wish to set up money purchase schemes.
For various reasons, group personal pensions schemes are generally more popular with staff than are occupational money purchase schemes. It seems at present, although the matter is not absolutely black and white, that, if a company has a group personal pension scheme, it will have to introduce a stakeholder scheme as well, even though the group personal pension scheme may offer better terms. No company wants to be saddled with the costs of two competing schemes. What is it to do?
On the major issue as between the stakeholder pension and the LISA, according to the joint paper issued by the Treasury and the DSS, the LISA is purely a way in which pension fund moneys can be managed. The paper advises that the proposed LISA is a collective investment management scheme that can be used by occupational schemes, personal schemes and stakeholder schemes.
The original concept was for a much simpler pension arrangement, analogous to a PEP and an ISA, dispensing with the need for, and cost of, trustees. The LISA is intended to be a pension tax wrapper with appropriate rules about how much could be invested in it each year. The accumulated investment could be drawn out when the holder reached a certain age for a pension. The money invested out of income would be tax deductible and would accrue free of tax. The scheme was intended to be simple and cheap, particularly suitable for people who are self-employed.
That was the concept originally postulated. There has been a big debate between the DSS and the Treasury about whether it will be introduced or whether all pension provisioning schemes must have the hassle and costs of a trustee. It is fundamental to providers to know what we will end up with. If we have a LISA like an ISA and like a PEP was, that opens up a massive new field of product provision and marketing, but if the LISA is merely to be a method of managing money, that is nothing new. Pension fund money can already be managed in collective investment schemes.
With regard to the Government's proposals and the problem that they are intended to address, I put carers into a separate category. The main problem is the growth in the number of self-employed. There are now 3.2 million self-employed and the figure is rising. Partly as a reaction to the UK's adoption of the European social chapter, many people in regular employment now function on a self-employed basis.
There are a lot of self-employed people with incomes below £9,000—1.6 million, according to the Government's figures. Many part-time transient workers and 43 per cent. of female part-time workers have no pension provisions. Most people with a track record of transient employment do not have any pension provisions. I suggest that the stakeholder scheme will have big problems in meeting the needs of people in those categories.
It will not be so easy to move pension arrangement under the stakeholder scheme on changing jobs, as presently proposed; and it also has the strange requirement that people can contribute £3,600 per annum or 100 per cent. of their income, whichever is less. The cost of working out the income of people in transient part-time employment for the record-keepers and the providers will be a nightmare. I cannot understand why there is such a requirement; moreover, people in transient employment may not even necessarily qualify for a stakeholder scheme put in place by a company. Self-employed people will certainly not be covered by company-sponsored stakeholder schemes.
The second problem with the stakeholder scheme is expense. What indications have the Government received of how many providers have suggested that they will provide stakeholder schemes on the CAT mark cost basis of, I understand, a 1 per cent. all-in charge? A lot of tax-oriented requirements such as the contribution rule will make the stakeholder scheme not a low-cost animal at all. Jobbing back, one of the attractions of the LISA as originally proposed was that it could be a low-cost vehicle, just as the competitive PEP market had become a low-cost vehicle.

Mr. Bercow: In his description of those excessive costs, is my hon. Friend taking account also of the higher national insurance rebates that the Government propose to encourage people to opt for stakeholder pensions?

Mr. Flight: That is a major issue, but it falls into a separate category. The crude issue is wanting to keep the charges as a percentage of assets that flow into stakeholder pensions down to the minimum, which is a quite understandable reaction to the fact that personal pensions have often turned out to be far too expensive.
I would add that the great irony is that—after all the trouble with personal pensions and just as the market is, if anything, coming round to delivering competitive, low-cost personal pension products which may compete on cost grounds with stakeholder schemes—the Government's proposals contribute an attack on personal pensions. I find that quite extraordinary, given that 8 million people have personal pensions. Are the Government sending to all those people the message that they should cash in a personal pension—potentially at great loss, given some of the costs involved in early redemption? On the other side, group personal pension schemes for many medium-sized companies are very


competitive and the best answer for their employees. However, it appears that they will not be permitted as an alternative to a stakeholder scheme.
My main point is that there is a great deal of confusion—not only among individuals about what possible pension arrangements are coming up and how they should decide on them, but in the industry itself over where the Green Paper and the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which is going through Parliament, will crystallise. By their own admission, the Government are going back to the industry to consult—that may be wise, but time is getting on. I can tell them that I know of many companies that do not know what to do with their pension arrangements; and the pension interregnum, for the next two years has only just started.
The second main issue, about which I have spoken and written elsewhere, is that the stakeholder proposals, combined with advance corporation tax changes pushing companies in the direction of money purchase schemes, mean that there will be a huge increase in money purchase pensions as opposed to final-salary pensions.
Final salary pensions involve a closed pot of assets operated by a company pension scheme, whereas, in money purchase pensions, there is an obligation to buy an annuity, either on retirement or at the age of 75. The numbers of those needing to buy annuities will rise dramatically. However, as economic policies have put the Government's finances into surplus, the net supply of long-dated gilts—the natural investment vehicle for annuities—has disappeared. No wonder annuity costs have risen dramatically. Real interest rates are nearly half the level of recent years, and traditional fixed-interest annuities are not necessarily the right vehicle for people to convert money-purchase accumulation into an eventual pension. That matter has not been thought about by the Government at all adequately. All the focus has gone on the saving and provisioning side, where there are a few gaps. However, in terms of how that saving is converted into pensions, a great deal more thought is needed.
The solution may be to permit maximum draw-down arrangements and to abolish the obligation to buy an annuity, or to reform annuity law to permit much more flexible equity-linked annuities—or a combination of the two—but a solution is urgently needed.
In pursuing the issue of insurance companies that provide equity-linked annuities, I was horrified to find that, if an equity-linked annuity performs at more than 3 per cent. over the Revenue's benchmark, the insurance companies are not allowed to distribute it—it must go on one side as a reserve. If, as has so often happened, that reserve builds up higher and higher, the beneficiaries of the annuity entirely lose those funds.
I have a letter from the Inland Revenue to an insurance company which had asked what it was to do with the money. In a cavalier fashion, the Revenue suggested that it be booked to windfall profits! Booking someone's pension savings to windfall profits? Why has not the issue of fair tax treatment for equity-linked indexed annuities been addressed as part of the pension reform process? When millions of people with money-purchase pensions will need to buy annuities, we must give the greatest thought to how best to turn those savings into pension income.
I am uncomfortable with the Government's minimum pension guarantee. I am sympathetic to the proposals from the Liberal Democrats, in that increasing state pensions for the elderly is the simplest and fairest method of addressing the problem of pensioner poverty, although it may involve a rather different state pension structure emerging in due course. The earnings-linked guaranteed pension support will be a major disincentive to pension saving and, as it gathers momentum, will be seen as enormously unfair. It would appear that someone earning an average wage who has accumulated his stakeholder or LISA pension may have no greater pension than someone who has managed to get away with doing nothing, and who picks up something similar in 20 years' time as a result of the minimum pension guarantee. That does not seem fair.
The pension guarantee arrangements also pose complex related issues in relation to sorting out the annuity problem in permitting draw-down arrangements. We cannot allow people to draw down and to be left with no capital. However, if we want to put in a protection barrier, logically it should be equal to the state minimum guarantee. The higher that guarantee is, the fewer people, effectively, will be able to draw down.
I plead with the Government to get a move on and sort out precisely what the LISA will be. If the LISA comes out of the debate as was intended, the stakeholder pension will be redundant for much of the territory that it was intended to cover. There is a need to sweep together stakeholder pensions, group personal pensions, occupational money-purchase pensions and occupational final salary pensions into a signal code for occupational schemes.
We would do better as a country to move towards the United States model, where there is a basic choice between occupational schemes and self-provisioning schemes, called the 401K. We would be close to that model if we ended up with the LISA, as intended, and the ISA. Those two together would be fairly similar to the tax incentives and the tax packaging for self-provisioning pensions saving that has been vastly successful in the United States.
As it stands, we will have a whole array of different types of pension that people do not understand, so they will have to incur the expense of advice. I suggest that the stakeholder system will also be inflexible for many in the categories needing to provide private sector provisioning—who will fall through the woodwork again—because they are in transient employment and will not be covered by employer-led stakeholder schemes.
There is widespread support for the Government's objectives and, next time that we Conservatives are in power, we will have to sort out, and work with, whatever the Government have put in place. Therefore, it is desirable to get as much of a consensus as possible—and to get the issues as right as possible—now. However, many issues have not been addressed and time is moving on.
We have had two years waiting for the initial proposals. Candidly, from the point of view of the industry, the last thing that we need is three years in which no one has known what pension arrangements to propose. The result of that will be that people will give up and lose interest, just as some 360,000 people have given up their old PEP savings schemes because of the complexity of the mini and maxi ISAs. We need simplicity, and we need to get a move on.

Mrs. Theresa May: Before I contribute, I should inform the House that I have in the Register of Members' Interests a non-registerable shareholding in the Prudential corporation.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak because I want to raise an issue that has not been dealt with in depth in the debate—although it was touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—the particular impact of the Government's pensions proposals on women. Women should be concerned about many aspects of the Government's pension proposals.
Before the end of the consultation period on the Green Paper, I participated in a seminar on the impact of the Government's proposals on women. The seminar was organised by the Fawcett Society—the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) also spoke there—and it was unfortunate that no Government spokesman attended. The seminar brought together a number of organisations, academics, union representatives, people from the City, pension providers and women's organisations to talk about the issue. Across the board, everybody expressed concern about the implications of the Government's pensions proposals for women.
The figures on the number of women who have their foot on the pension scheme ladder—a point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North—show that there is a real problem in terms of alerting women to the need to make pension provision. The National Council of Women of Great Britain published a document called "Securing our Future", in which it set out the results of a survey it had undertaken about women and their attitudes to pensions. The survey showed that almost one third of the women interviewed had no pension scheme in operation; some two thirds expressed concern about their future financial situation; and half were concerned that they would never be able to save enough to secure their old age. Those are figures that should concern us. It is right that the House should focus on them and on the need to raise awareness among women about the desirability of making provision for a pension.
It is particularly unfortunate that, just as more women are getting their foot on to the ladder of occupational pension schemes and are in employment that offers such schemes, the Government are dealing them a blow through stakeholder pensions, introducing arrangements that many people think may encourage employers to cut occupational pension schemes, and increasing the complexity of the system.
Again, I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) talk about the array of pension provisions that will be available after the Government's proposals have been put in place. Some of the provisions are difficult to understand without advice, and that will be necessary. I want to come on to the way in which the Government are ignoring the need for advice on many of their pension proposals. Just as women appear to be getting their foot on to the occupational scheme ladder, the Government are introducing a complex system that will have an adverse impact on them.
That point was taken up by the National Council of Women in its response to the Government's Green Paper. It said:
We do not … think that the present proposals are adequate. They present a confused picture of piecemeal provision. Having to choose from a mix of public and private schemes will leave most people feeling confused and (perhaps rightly) insecure.
I have met representatives of the council who have spent considerable time examining the Government's proposals and raising concerns with them. The council has raised a particular concern. It was mentioned at the Fawcett Society seminar that I attended; I have heard others make the point.
Having looked at the Government's Green Paper in some depth and detail—it went to many organisations for consultation—and having taken the views of its members, because it believed that the Government's consultation exercise was a proper consultation exercise, the council found that, before the deadline for getting comments on the consultation exercise to the Government, they had gone ahead and published the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. During the seminar, many people commented that they were discussing and debating the impact of the Government's Green Paper proposals on women's pension provision while, at the same time, in the House, the Government's proposals were already being examined in detail in Standing Committee; the Bill had had its Second Reading.
Therefore, many people felt that the consultation exercise was something of a sham. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, referred to a number of issues where the Government have indicated, through ministerial written answers, that there will be further consultation. I hope that the Government are not doing what they did on the consultation on the Green Paper. I hope that they do not think that, by telling people that they are consulting, everything will be all right. As we saw with the Green Paper, they had made their mind up all along and the consultation exercise was nothing but a sham.

Ms Keeble: I agree with the hon. Lady that what happens to women's pensions is important. However, does she not accept that, although it is true that women are getting their first toehold on the occupational pension ladder, for quite a long time to come, the pension that will apply to many women will be the state second pension, which, as it is not a funded scheme, will have a substantial contribution from the Government? In setting that up, particularly with the carers pension, the Government will make a huge contribution to the well-being of women pensioners.

Mrs. May: I will address the impact of the second state pension on women later. All I will say at this point is that I suggest that the hon. Lady looks carefully at the implications of the Government's proposals. When one looks at the proposals in detail, one finds that they are not as beneficial to women as perhaps, on the surface, she may have taken them to be.
I reiterate the concern that I and many others have about the complexity of the pension provision that will be in place after the Government's proposals go through, assuming that the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is passed. That complexity is of particular concern to women


who are worried that they are not in a position to make provision for their old age, and who feel the need for advice. Faced with that enormous complexity, advice will be important. It is of much concern that the Government do not appear to have accepted the fact that there is a need for advice on their stakeholder pension proposals.
Somewhat worryingly, the National Council of Women survey to which I have referred showed that, although 54 per cent. of the women interviewed said that they trusted a professional adviser, 64 per cent. said that they trusted the media to provide them with pensions advice. That should concern us all. I suspect that many people—women and men—take their advice from newspapers, rather than from a professional adviser. Given the complexity, it is important that advice is available to people as to what the best option is and what they should do in taking out a pension.
It appears that the Government have accepted the need for advice on stakeholder pensions, but only if the individual concerned pays for the advice. Therefore, what has been billed as a wonderful low-cost option that will be of enormous benefit to people on lower incomes has its drawbacks. The Government did not properly consider the need for advice when they first looked at those pensions, although I note from the comments of the shadow Secretary of State that advice is one of issues on which we are to have a consultation exercise, sham or otherwise.
I have mentioned a concern about the impact of the proposals on occupational pensions. That is a real issue that needs to be addressed. There is a concern that some employers will look at stakeholder pensions and say, "It is easier just to let employees take out stakeholder pensions and not to provide occupational pensions for them."
That would be a retrograde step. The provision of occupational pension schemes has been of enormous benefit. As I have said, it is extremely good news that many women are now able to get their foot on to the occupational pension scheme ladder. Sadly, many of those may now find that the ladder is pulled away from them by the Government's policy of introducing stakeholder schemes.
It has been difficult for women to make provision for the pension that they want because, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, they are more likely to have interrupted career patterns and periods when they are not in employment. They are more likely to be in part-time jobs, where earning levels are not significant. It is important that we look at the implications for those women, and the means by which they can ensure that they make pension provision for their elderly years.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North lauded the second state pension. She believes that it is particularly beneficial because it will provide pension credits and make available a pension for carers and for women who look after their families. However, as I cautioned her in my response to her intervention—I am sorry that she is no longer in the Chamber—she should look in more detail at the Government's provisions. The regulations that Government are proposing, and the criteria that they are setting for second state pension credits, will significantly

disadvantage many women, namely, those who choose to stay at home to look after children aged between five and 16.
If one is looking after children, under the Government's proposals, one will qualify for credits for the state second pension only if the children are under five years old. Therefore, someone who chooses to remain in the home to look after her family members who are over five years old will not benefit from the state second pension. Many women would be disadvantaged by implementation of the proposal. Once again—as in so many other aspects of the Government's welfare proposals—single-earner couples in which the wife chooses to stay at home to look after the family will be hit.
What about the Government' s proposals on carers? The hon. Member for Northampton, North made quite something of them, saying that they will significantly benefit carers. Interestingly, however, those on the minimum wage will have to work only about 18 hours a week to reach the lower earnings limit, whereas those caring at home for someone in receipt of disability benefits will have to provide 35 hours of care a week to qualify for state second pension credits.
Therefore, the Government—far from recognising that caring is a beneficial occupation, which it is, and that we should be grateful to the many people who stay at home to care for elderly and disabled relatives—are setting the credit qualification threshold significantly higher for carers than for those who are in the workplace.
I have not made up those points, which were made also by the Pension Provision Group in its Green Paper response—which was produced by the Department of Social Security. The group went on to say that the value of the state second pension
earned by working just enough to reach the lower earnings limit will be much greater than it would have been for SERPS. The reward for combining a modest amount of paid work with caring responsibilities will therefore be greater.
The impetus behind the current proposals—as in so many of the Government's actions—is to get people into the workplace. The Government are saying that people will benefit if they not only look after a relative with a disability, but do some work. The abiding theme in so many of the Government's proposals, including those on disability benefits, is that one is of value in society only if one is in the workplace. I do not hold that belief. However, I tell the Government that they should carefully reconsider their proposals, specifically those on disability benefits, which most starkly demonstrate their motivating theme.
Ministers should reconsider the value contributed to society by those who are not in the workplace. Women who stay at home because they have decided to look after their families are contributing value to society, as are those who stay at home because they have decided to care for an elderly or disabled relative. Those people are playing a valuable role in society, and they should not—consistently—be dismissed by the Government, as they would be by the Government's welfare proposals.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have already made very eloquent and detailed speeches on the impact in other spheres of the Government's pension proposals. I entirely agreed with, and welcomed, the comments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on the pensions reform mess into which the Government have


got themselves. The Government have dithered, delayed, practised obfuscation and shown uncertainty about pensions reform. One minute, they say that they will do one thing; the next minute, they say that they will do something else.

Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is developing a very powerful argument. Is not another stark contrast the fact that, on matters that the Government thought were important—such as a windfall tax, an emergency Budget and giving the Bank of England independence—they rushed into taking action as soon as they got into office, whereas they took no such action on pensions, because they did not think that pensions were important? In 18 years in opposition, the Government were able to work out plans on some matters, whereas pensions did not seem to be sufficiently important for them to think about.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he was absolutely right. Furthermore, the contrast that he drew—especially on the windfall tax—was even starker than that drawn by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. Ministers knew before they were elected to government that they would hit pension funds by changing the treatment of advance corporation tax. They are now taking £5 billion out of pension funds—

Mr. Flight: Per annum.

Mrs. May: Yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend—who said earlier that, as a consequence of that change, occupational pension schemes will either cost individuals 10 per cent. more or benefit individuals 10 per cent. less.
Although the Government had worked out that they would immediately hit pension funds and take money out of pensioners' pockets, they had not worked out their welfare reform proposals, although welfare reform was one of the key points mentioned in their general election manifesto.
Before the general election, the Labour party consistently said that welfare reform was the one thing that it would do. Two years down the line, where are we—what have the Government done about welfare reform? They have produced muddled proposals on pension provision. Moreover, the only way in which they are reducing the welfare budget is to cut widows and disability benefits. Widows and disabled people are under attack by the Government. I suggest that the Government's pension proposals will put women under attack, too.

Mr. Tim Collins: It is a particular pleasure to speak in this debate, as the most cursory examination of the Chamber will reveal that Labour Members have fled the field on the issue.
[Interruption.] Ministers are getting terribly excited about that, but, if they care to look behind them, they will note that precisely two Labour Back Benchers are in the Chamber. One of those is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and the other—who is very welcome in the Chamber—has not sought to contribute to the debate.
I am, conversely, making the third consecutive speech by a Conservative Member—on a subject that the Government themselves said was absolutely at the heart

of their legislative programme. The Prime Minister said that the issue was of paramount importance. In the general election campaign, Labour Members told the electorate that pensions and welfare reform was their number one priority. Famously, the Prime Minister even launched a programme of social security road shows, which concluded after only one event. It all goes to show—as my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently said in the debate—how embarrassed the Government have become on the subject of pensions and welfare reform. Although they have talked a great game, they have delivered remarkably little.
The Government have not been reluctant to rush into action in other spheres. Indeed, in many other spheres—whether it is the working time directive or, as hon. Members have said, the measures on advance corporation tax introduced in the Chancellor's first Budget—critics may well lay at the Government's door a charge of rushing into premature action. However, on pensions and welfare reform, which the Government have themselves named as their top priority, we have had precious little action—although we have had consultation upon consultation, Minister succeeding Minister, and White Papers and Green Papers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said very eloquently, the only way in which the Government have changed the system's effects on savings has been to replace the successful tax-exempt special savings account and personal equity plan schemes with their extremely ill-thought-through, unsuccessful, confusing and—to put it most generouslyyet—to-be-proven individual savings account scheme. As my hon. Friend said, 300,000 people who had been saving in PEPs are currently not saving in ISAs, which does not bode well for the future—when those people will become pensioners, and when we had hoped that dependence on the basic state pension would be reduced by savings in such schemes.
The Government's amendment to today's Opposition motion shows a little brass neck, even by the standards of this Government. That amendment seeks praise for delivering "economic stability" for pensioners. Well, that is one interpretation of what they inherited: the fastest-growing economy in Europe. Now they preside over the slowest growing economy in Europe; and whereas they inherited falling unemployment, they have delivered rising unemployment.
One could call that economic stability or, more likely, one could call it frittering away a golden economic legacy, which has consistently been the tale of this Government and which, sadly, will result in many people—not least pensioners—paying a high price.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke eloquently about the impact on pensions provision of some of the Government's changes to other forms of taxation and benefit. The overwhelming majority of people in their late 40s or 50s, or just coming up to their 60s, are likely to be married couples, so they will lose out from the abolition of the married couples allowance. People coming up to the time when they have to calculate the pensionable income on which they will have to depend in retirement are losing out.
The Government may say that they have made provision for older couples, but the provision is to keep the married couples allowance only if one member of the


couple was born before 1935. You do not need to be a master of mental arithmetic—although I know that you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to work out that people born before 1935 will turn at least 64 some time this year, so people on the verge of retirement, in their 50s, are not helped at all by the concession for which the Government have so eloquently called for thanks.
The Government also task us with the idea that we should be grateful, on behalf of pensioners, for the concessionary travel scheme. I would have thought that travel and transport would be the last issue that the Government wanted to raise in a debate on the situation facing pensioners.

Ms Keeble: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that in London, for example, the concessionary travel fares provided by Labour local authorities have made it possible for many pensioners to have a reasonable life style, with some mobility? Several pensioners whom I know in London say that they are able to stay only because of the generous transport schemes.

Mr. Collins: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, because she has made precisely the point that I was about to make. My constituents, who live nearly 300 miles from London, are fed up with policies devised by people who think that everyone can get on a bus or a tube. Tubes do not run in south lakeland. Rural pensioners are suffering because of the Government's reckless pursuit of ever higher petrol and diesel duties and their ever more effulgent denunciation of the use of the car. Many pensioners have no choice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment may have mentioned transportation in passing, but we must now get on to pensions.

Mr. Collins: Indeed, as I pointed out, it was the Government who rather unwisely raised the subject, but of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have not had any clarification from the Government of the measures that they intend to introduce to assist pensioners. The Secretary of State restated the fact that the Government believe that the minimum income guarantee is the answer to all pensioners' problems. It has been widely pointed out—by Conservatives, Liberals and, although not this afternoon, also by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—that the minimum income guarantee, far from being a solution, will make pensioners' problems far worse.
The minimum income guarantee will increase means-testing and provide an active disincentive for future pensioners to save. The message will be that people without a very sizeable income would be mad to save for a rainy day because they would be far better off expecting the minimum income guarantee to pick up all their bills.
The subject that comes up most frequently on the doorstep in my constituency—I am sure that other hon. Members find the same—is why pensioners who have saved a little and perhaps bought a house should have to pay all their bills, while people just down the road who

have never lifted a finger have every single bill paid for them. With the minimum income guarantee, that problem will increase.

Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Collins: I am sorry, but I have given way to the hon. Lady already, and I am keen to hear what will no doubt be a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies); I do not want to delay it other than to say that it has been very clear this afternoon that Conservative Members stand for support for those who save, for families and for pensioners who seek to make provision for themselves and their families, whereas Labour Members—those few who have spoken—have simply parroted the usual belief that the Government are doing the right thing for pensioners.
Pensioners in my constituency and throughout the country believe that the Government are doing anything but serving their interests. The Government have run the economy into the sand. They are penalising those who are trying to save and not helping pensioners. They started by imposing a £5 billion a year stealth tax on pensioners' income and they will carry on harming pensioners until the day that they are slung out of office. That is why we condemn them.

Mr. Quentin Davies: We learn from this morning's press that the Government have lost the support of a substantial proportion of their Back Benchers on the means-testing of incapacity benefit, and it is clear from what we have seen this afternoon that they are also losing the support of their Back Benchers on their pensions proposals. Of the enormous number of Labour Members, only two Back Benchers have been prepared to turn up and defend the Government's actions.
That absence has been more than made up for by some extremely powerful contributions from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made various proposals, some of which, in themselves, might have been quite interesting, but I cannot be the only one who will take a long time to take any Liberal proposal remotely seriously again, now that we have seen the Liberals running up the white flag on tuition fees in Scotland—only a week after they were apparently resolutely committed to their policy—and all for a mess of pottage: two pathetically junior seats in the Labour Administration in Scotland.
The other Labour contribution—that was a Freudian slip, because it is very hard to distinguish between Labour and Liberal these days—was from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman). I strongly agreed with him. He spoke with feeling, and evidently with some personal knowledge, about the position of local authority employees who continue to do the same job in the private sector because they are contracted out or are working for agencies that are privatised.
Clearly, such people should not lose any pension rights as a result of the change. The Opposition strongly support the hon. Gentleman's representations, and we hope that the Government will listen. We need an equivalent of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for pensions in the local authority sector. That is a very good cause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke in original vein, as he always does on these occasions, and with much thought and obvious preparation. He suggested that it would be a good idea to continue the consideration that the previous Conservative Administration gave to the possibility of introducing a greater element of funding to the state pension system. I know that he feels strongly about such matters and we shall take his views into account. He also made a powerful attack on the evils of means-testing.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made a valiant attempt to defend the Government. She was alone on the Government Back Benches in so doing, because the hon. Member for Putney had his own reasonable agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke with great knowledge and he is a fine example of the great utility to the House of having Members of Parliament who have had a direct professional involvement in the matters under discussion. My hon. Friend made a well-informed and useful contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made a powerful speech about the evils of means-testing and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made a memorable speech. She brought a new dimension to the consideration of pension issues. We forget too often how whole sections of the population—women, of course, make up 50 per cent. of the population—may lose out badly. My hon. Friend was right to say that only in the past few years have women started to benefit substantially from the occupational pension system. Unfortunately, we now have a Labour Government who have no regard for that great national asset and who may do serious damage to it. The opportunities provided by the occupational pension system are being closed off to future generations, men and women, and some women will find that they have never had the opportunity to benefit from it.
The Labour Government's handling of pensions has been almost unimaginably muddled. We have had administrative confusion, destructive departmental rivalry and, above all, incompetence and bad principles. Let us start with the bad principles. The Labour party won the election on a manifesto that made it clear that it was committed to maintaining SERPS for those who wished to participate in it. It was in the manifesto in black and white but, when the Labour party got into office, it promptly broke that electoral commitment. That was a bad start and a bad principle to begin on.

Ms Keeble: Would the hon. Gentleman defend his party's actions in government on widows' SERPS? Does he defend the total chaos that surrounded the processing of that decision and the grief that it caused many people?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady has obviously taken a course at Millbank in how to defend the indefensible by talking about something else. The Labour Government decided to destroy the SERPS system, in breach of their electoral promise, and have replaced it with another system, announced in the Green Paper as the state second pension. However, it is clear that even someone with a full earnings record will, at very best, end up with a pension that—on the day of their retirement—is marginally above the minimum income guarantee. Because the minimum income guarantee—that new

means-tested benefit so beloved of the Labour party—will be indexed to earnings, but the state second pension will be indexed to prices, it is axiomatic that, within a few years, even someone with a full entitlement to the state second pension will find that it has been overhauled by the value of the minimum income guarantee.
The Government will have condemned everyone in the state second pension scheme to spend their declining years dependent on means-tested benefits. What an extraordinarily unjust system. How perverse, unfair and crazy it is to decide to uprate to a lesser degree a pension to which someone has contributed than a pension to which no one has contributed. It takes new Labour to think up a system as unfair and irrational as that.

Mr. Rendel: rose—

Mr. Davies: My time is limited. The hon. Gentleman had his chance and I have already expressed my views about his party's policies. He should not take it personally.
Bad principles are the foundation of all the mistakes that the Government have made. The Government have introduced another fundamentally bad principle into our national economy by taxing savings at a higher level than other income. As if that is not enough, they have added the unfair to the irrational and have decided that people who depend on savings income—even those whose savings income is so modest that it does not take their total income above the income tax threshold—will still pay income tax on that savings income. That is a desperately unfair and cruel policy that will have a huge impact on pensioners with a small savings income.
It is also a bad principle to increase taxation on pension funds, as the Government did with the withdrawal of the dividend tax credits—the introduction of the pensions tax. It is no surprise, therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) pointed out, that the savings ratio in this country is declining. It has fallen from more than 11 per cent. when the Government came to power to around 7 per cent. now. It may have fallen even lower since I last saw the figures. That is a potential catastrophe for this country and it was brought about by the application of deliberate policies that were extremely ill conceived.
Stakeholder pensions are in an extraordinary shambles. The Government's introduction of stakeholder pensions will become a locus classicus—a case study—in political science classes in many parts of the world on how not to make effective policy. The Government came to power with a manifesto commitment to introduce a stakeholder pension, but they did not have the faintest idea what to do. For 18 months, nothing happened. The Government went through two Secretaries of State and three Pensions Ministers. After 18 months, we still had not seen the Green Paper that was promised in the summer, then in the autumn.
The Government were desperate and had to publish something by Christmas. They lifted the Australian superannuation model—which has now been abandoned by the Australians, although the Government probably have not noticed that—which was based on compulsory contributions by employees and employers to a funded scheme. Everyone in Australia who was earning above a certain minimum income—A$450 a month—had to


take part. The Government changed the figure here to £9,000 a year, but the system was basically the same. However, they then changed their minds.
I do not know whether it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister who vetoed compulsion, but one of them did. I was shocked this afternoon by the way the Secretary of State tried to bluff his way out of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green put to the Secretary of State the reference on page 105 of the Green Paper to compulsory funded pensions for those earning more than £9,000 a year. Clearly, that contradicts the rest of the Green Paper and is a leftover from the original proposal. It shows that—in panic, at the last moment, and without taking the time or trouble even to proofread the document—the Government have allowed a trace of the previous model to survive.
The Secretary of State said earlier that that interpretation was a misunderstanding and that the reference was to the existing system. The right hon. Gentleman should return to the House and make a statement to clarify the matter. As all hon. Members know, this country has no compulsory funded pension system. It never has had. There is a compulsory non-funded system of national insurance, and there are various funded schemes—occupational, personal and others—that are voluntary. However, the phrase in the Green Paper to which I have referred could not, by definition, apply to anything that exists at present. Therefore, this attempt to cover up—I shall not use the possibly unparliamentary term that first springs to mind—has been blown wide open.
When the Government abandoned compulsion, the rest of the package—the trust system, for example, and the promise of low costs—stopped making sense. The absence of compulsion means that there are no economies of scale, that there are marketing expenses and that there is a great need for advice.
The Government do not understand that people earning between, say, £9,000 and £20,000 a year and who have a personal pension face a dilemma. Should they move out of that pension to join a stakeholder pension? If the Government fulfil their promise, the stakeholder costs may be lower, but the costs of a personal pension might have been paid already at the front end. Should people whose incomes are just above £9,000 stay in the state second pension, or take out a personal pension? If the opportunity exists, should they join an occupational scheme? If they are in a personal pension scheme, should they remain in it?
Grotesquely, people on £9,000 a year cannot now take that decision in an educated way—avoiding the traps and the possibility of mis-selling—without expert actuarial advice tailored to their circumstances. Any solution to such a problem will depend on people's ages, their promotion prospects, whether they intend to stay in the same job, and so on.
The Government have the effrontery to say that people on £9,000 a year are supposed to pay for tailored actuarial advice. That shows how little they know about pensions or about the circumstances of such people.
As if that were not enough, the Government further fragmented the market with the unnecessary and gratuitous introduction of differing tax regimes for

stakeholder pensions and for personal and other pensions. The Secretary of State made a concession this afternoon when he said that he may allow group personal pensions to count as stakeholder pensions. For the first time, under pressure from Conservative Members, he is considering that positively. However, if he does allow that, what tax regime will apply? At present, group personal pensions enjoy the tax reliefs applicable to personal pensions. If they are to count as stakeholder pensions, will they have to accept the stakeholder regime's maximum limit of £3,600 a year, or will different stakeholders come under different tax regimes?
These are important matters. They add to the complexity and to the number of traps. They add also to the likelihood—nay, the certainty—of mis-selling unless people take complicated actuarial advice when they decide to join a pension scheme.
The LISA has introduced further complications. What tax regime will apply there? Will there be one regime for LISAs when offered as stakeholder pensions, and another for other provision?
It is plain that the Government did not begin to think through these matters before they put pen to paper. So arrogant were they, they did not even wait for the end of the consultation period—but now they are learning the lesson the hard way. The Secretary of State said this afternoon that he is opening up new consultation on the proposals, all of which are so misconceived that none will work. The Secretary of State now has to go back to the drawing board and take the advice that he should have taken at the beginning.
There could be no more dramatic illustration of incompetence and boneheadedness. It is an example of the arrogance of power into which the Government have fallen and into which they continue to fall further, day by day.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): As always, the House will have enjoyed the energetic and theatrical performance from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). If his contribution were to be measured by gusto rather than content, no doubt it would have more impact than it actually does. I have had the good fortune to listen to the evolution of the hon. Gentleman's line in rhetoric over these past months. However, I am bound to say that the more over the top his contributions become, the more detached they are from the reality of what the industry and all informed commentators are saying, and the more desperate they sound as well.
Indeed, one is bound to ask why, after requisitioning an Opposition day for a pensions debate as recently as February, Conservative Members have found it necessary to have another go today. The answer, of course, is because they failed so abysmally to make any impact the last time. I do not blame them for wanting to have another go, but I am afraid that they have made no more impact today than they did last time.
It would be a good idea for the Conservative party to try to make sure that, in an Opposition day debate such as this, at least a minimal number of its Back Benchers are present to support the policy of those on the Front Bench. Today, we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) being


dragooned from her place on the Front Bench so that she can speak in the debate from the Back Bench. Also, I had never seen a Whip be dragooned from the Front Bench to the Back Bench in a desperate attempt to try to make up the numbers, but that is what happened to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who has now returned to the Front Bench. Hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench would be well advised to make sure that there is at least a little Back-Bench support before they embark on a debate such as this.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way, as he referred to me specifically. I was not dragooned from the Front Bench to take part in the debate. I have a particular interest in this matter, and I have referred before to the comments that I have made in seminars on women and pensions. In reality, those on the Government Front Bench did not want to listen to my remarks because of the impact that their proposals will have on more than 50 per cent. of the population.

Mr. Timms: The problem facing Opposition Front Benchers is that, to make an impact, they need some substance to their attack.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Rubbish.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not need such substance, but empty rhetoric is not enough, no matter how over the top it might be.
The Opposition motion talks about "complacency and incompetence"—those words sum up the previous Government's record pretty well. Under the previous Government, there was the problem of the mis-selling of personal pensions: up to 2.5 million people—people such as nurses and teachers—were sold the wrong pension. That is incompetence indeed and, as in so many matters, we are clearing up the mess.
Under the previous Government, there were millions of people for whom no suitable funded pension was available on the market. We are introducing stakeholder pensions to meet a need that was completely ignored by the previous Government. That is an example of their complacency.
Then there was the problem with the inherited state earnings-related pension scheme. The Conservative Government introduced changes in the law in 1986 and then did not tell anyone. They told the Committee scrutinising the relevant Bill that they would launch a major publicity campaign about the changes, yet not only did they forget to do that, they did not even tell the people who worked for them in the Department of Social Security. Again, we are left to sort out the legacy of the previous Government's incompetence. What a shambles it was.
Conservative Members accuse this Government of complacency but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate, on the basis of their policies, we are heading for a situation in which, by 2050, one person in three will retire straight on to income support. That is not acceptable. We are introducing the state second pension precisely to reduce the amount of means-testing that there would otherwise be in the system. That means-testing is a result of the previous Government's policies.
We want a contributory system so that people who work and contribute all their lives will retire on an income above the level of the means-tested threshold. Our plans will deliver that; the previous Government's policies did not.

Mr. Quentin Davies: If the Minister really values the contributory principle over means-testing—I do not believe that for a moment, but that is what he has just told us—why does he uprate the minimum income guarantee at a higher level than the contributory state second pension?

Mr. Timms: I shall come to the minimum income guarantee in a moment. Let me first remind the hon. Gentleman that the state second pension is wholly contributory.
I referred to the Opposition's policies, but that may have been rather generous—we have in fact heard remarkably little about their policies this evening. We know what their policies were before the election, and the damage that they were doing; but we do not know what their policies are now, and they have not given us the slightest hint. Do they still believe in basic pension plus?
I commend the forthrightness of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) who said that he supported privatising the state pension, but is that the position of his Front-Bench colleagues? People would like to know. Do the Opposition have a policy? They have given no clues about it tonight. Even if we do not know what they favour, or what their policies are, they have given us a pretty clear idea of what they are against.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned the minimum income guarantee a moment ago, and the Opposition are clearly against that. They say, in the motion, that it will lead to too much means-testing. In fact, our policy for the minimum income guarantee and the state second pension will reduce the amount of means-testing in comparison with where their policies were taking us, but we shall let that pass.
The Opposition say that our policy on the minimum income guarantee will increase means-testing. What they do not say, but what they mean—if one listens carefully, one can pick this out—is that the minimum income guarantee is too generous at £75 per week for a single pensioner and £116 for a pensioner couple, to be uprated in line with earnings next April. That is what the Opposition object to. They think that we are being too generous to pensioners on income support—they think that the 1.5 million pensioners on income support should receive less than we are proposing.
During the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, a number of Opposition Members apologised for social security measures introduced by the previous Government, informing us that they never really believed in them. The Conservative party leadership issued the entire population of Scotland with an apology. The deputy leader of the Conservative party has been attempting to shake off his party's hard-faced, privatising image, and to convince us—with the support of the party leader—that the Conservative party does care after all.
The social security team has no truck with all that wishy-washy nonsense from the party leader and his deputy. They are not for turning. They stand for the old ways. They are faithful to the true path. They yearn for the glory days of yore, for the poll tax, for mass


unemployment that was the price worth paying, for top rate VAT on fuel and for charges for pensioners' eye tests—those were the days.
We heard the shadow Secretary of State argue that the minimum income guarantee for pensioners is too generous. Uprating in line with earnings for 1.5 million of the least-well-off people in the country is too soft hearted for him. That may be his policy; it may even be his party's policy—but do not tell the leadership. However, it is not our policy, because our aim is that even the least-well-off pensioners should be able to share in our country's rising prosperity and the benefits of this Government's economic success.
We have heard several interesting speeches today. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) expressed what appeared to be some reservations about uprating the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings. Of course, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on pensions has repeatedly supported uprating the minimum income guarantee with earnings, so I am slightly unclear what point the hon. Gentleman was making. He was on more solid ground in advocating consensus on pensions.

Mr. Rendel: I am delighted to give the Minister a point of explanation. The minimum income guarantee being uprated in line with earnings works perfectly well if there is also an age addition, but it does not work without it.

Mr. Timms: Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman's party's pensions spokesman has supported our minimum income guarantee proposals. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be endorsing that, and I agree with what his spokesman has said.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I know that the Minister likes to field soft balls from the Liberal Democrats, but will he answer my question about who will pay for the advice required by a person on £9,000 a year, who will have a bewildering range of choices and who will be the victim of serious mis-selling unless advice is available?

Mr. Timms: Advice, as we have always said, is important, and the charging regime for stakeholder schemes will reflect the need for advice. People will receive the advice that they need—[Interruption.] Yes, they will.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made an excellent speech, and I was grateful for what he said about my meeting with his constituents. When one meets pensioner groups to explain how the minimum income guarantee will work, one finds that it is well received. People acknowledge that it is right that extra help should be concentrated on those who need it most.
My hon. Friend raised the problem of membership of local authority pension schemes for those transferred out of local authority employment under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Employees of private sector organisations providing services to local authorities under contract may not automatically remain members of their local government pension scheme, but the Inland Revenue rules permit employees of contractors to join or remain in the scheme if the employer joins the scheme as a non-associated

employer. I should be happy to draw my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of ministerial colleagues at the Treasury.
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about transparency in socially responsible investment for pension schemes.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough made a characteristically thoughtful speech, and Members on both sides will have appreciated it. He argued for greater compulsion, but expressed sympathy—I am not quite sure that it was support, but it was going in that direction—for the minimum income guarantee. Our proposals, coupling the minimum income guarantee with the state second pension, will ensure that everyone who contributes throughout their lives to the state second pension or contracts out into a funded scheme is assured of retiring on an income above the minimum income guarantee level. We have squared the circle of addressing low incomes in retirement for those in low-paid work throughout their working lives and providing incentives to save.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Minister now clear up the point that he has not answered in his replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)? Will he make it clear that the Government are saying that anyone on £9,000 or more must invest in a stakeholder pension? Is that the Government's advice, because those people will get no other?

Mr. Timms: I have already answered that point.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on her helpful and thoughtful speech. She has already spoken to me about her useful meeting with constituents who work for the Nationwide building society, and I welcome the fact that she and other Labour Members are working closely with employers and pension providers to contribute to the taking of correct decisions.
We have set out the principles underlying our reforms: work for those who can and security for those who cannot, and a responsibility to save towards their retirement for those able to do so. We want to put pensions on a sound footing. We want a pensions system that provides a secure retirement for all pensioners—today's as well as tomorrow's, people on low incomes as well as those on good salaries. We want a system that balances fairly the responsibilities of the state and the individual. Those are the objectives that our proposals will achieve.
The Opposition Front-Bench team seem to suffer particular apoplexy over the fact that we are listening to what the pensions industry is saying and are working up the details accordingly. I make no apology for that. We are leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that we get the details of our public-private partnership right—and we will get them right.
The state second pension will deliver much better state pensions to those on low incomes. Also, carers, long-term disabled people with broken work records and mothers with small children will be credited in for the first time. The framework for stakeholder pensions will open up good-value, funded pensions for millions of people who cannot get them at the moment. We shall ensure, for the first time, that people have clear information about the pension that they can expect when they retire.
Except in the Conservative party, there is widespread support for developing better pensions options for moderate earners. Like the hon. Member for Newbury,


I genuinely regret that the Conservative party is opting out of the growing consensus around both the aims and the framework that we have proposed for our national pensions policy. Others in this House, including Opposition Back Benchers, are engaging constructively in this process. It is a shame that Front-Bench Members are not able to do so, but time is a great healerI genuinely regret that the Conservative party is opting out of the growing consensus around both the aims and the framework that we have proposed for our national pensions policy. Others in this House, including Opposition Back Benchers, are engaging constructively in this process. It is a shame that Front-Bench Members are not able to do so, but time is a great healer—even the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford will in due course recognise that it is in all our interests that everyone should be able to look forward to an adequate income in retirement. That is what our proposals will achieve, and I commend them to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 362.

Division No. 169]
[7 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hammond, Philip


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hawkins, Nick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hayes, John


Bercow, John
Heald, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brady, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Burns, Simon
Jenkin, Bernard


Butterfill, John
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


(Chipping Barnet)
Lansley, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward


Clappison, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Lidington, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Loughton, Tim


Curry, Rt Hon David
Luff, Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
McIntosh, Miss Anne


& Howden)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Day, Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Madel, Sir David


Duncan Smith, lain
Malin, Humfrey


Evans, Nigel
Maples, John


Faber, David
Mates, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



Fallon, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Flight, Howard
Moss, Malcolm


Forsythe, Clifford
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard



Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Paterson, Owen


Fraser, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Gale, Roger
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Grieve, Dominic
Shepherd, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)





Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Syms, Robert
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Tyrie, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walter, Robert
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Wardle, Charles
Mr. Tim Collins.





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell— Savours, Dale


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Anisworth, Robert(Cov'ty NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Cawsey, Ian


Allan, Richard
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allen, Graham
Chaytor, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ashdown, Rt Hon paddy
Clark, Dr Lynda


Ashton, Joe

(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Austins, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Baker, Norman
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ballard, Jackie
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Banks, Tony
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Ann


Barron, Kevin
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, lain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cotter, Brian


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim



Berry, Roger
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cummings, John


Blizzard, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Borrow, David
(Copeland)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Burgon, Colin
Dobbin, Jim


Burnett, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Byres, Rt Hon Stephen
Drew, David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Drown, Ms Julia


Carborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)



Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies



(NE Fife)



Campbell, Ronnie (Bylth V)







Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ennis, Jeff
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Etherington, Bill
 Keeble, Ms Sally


Fearn, Ronnie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fisher, Mark
Keetch, Paul


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Flint, Caroline
Kemp, Fraser


Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Galloway, George
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gapes, Mike
Kirkwood, Archy


Gardiner, Barry
Kumar, Dr Ashok


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Laxton, Bob


Gerrard, Neil
Leslie, Christopher


Gibson, Dr Ian
Levitt, Tom


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Godsiff, Roger
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Goggins, Paul
Linton, Martin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Livingstone, Ken


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lock, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Love, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McAvoy, Thomas


Hain, Peter
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
(Makerfield)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hanson, David
McDonnell, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mackinlay, Andrew


Healey, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McNulty, Tony


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
MacShane, Denis


Hepburn, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heppell, John
McWilliam, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Judy


Hinchliffe, David
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoey, Kate
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hope, Phil
Martlew, Eric


Hopkins, Kelvin
Maxton, John


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Meale, Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Merron, Gillian


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
 Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mitchell, Austin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
 Moran, Ms Margaret


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mudie, George


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Oaten, Mark


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Ms Jenny
Osborne, Ms Sandra


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Palmer, Dr Nick





Pearson, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Perham, Ms Linda
Stevenson, George


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Plaskitt, James
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pond, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pound, Stephen
Stott, Roger



Powell, Sir Raymond
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
(Dewsbury)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raynsford, Nick
Temple—Morris, Peter


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Todd, Mark


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Truswell, Paul


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sanders, Adrian
Tyler, Paul


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vaz, Keith


Savidge, Malcolm
Ward, Ms Claire


Sawford, Phil
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watts, David


Shaw, Jonathan
White, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
(Swansea W)


Singh, Marsha
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Winnick, David


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Snape, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Soley, Clive
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wyatt, Derek


Spellar, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. Greg Pope and


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House commends the Government's approach to pensions reform, set out in its Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions"; congratulates the Government on its determination to tackle 18 years of abject failure on the part of the Conservative government to put pensions provision on a proper footing and rejects the Conservative plans to privatise pension provision; commends the Government's commitment to end the scandal of pensions mis-selling and its plans to strengthen the financial regulatory system; commends the Government on its commitment to economic stability and low inflation which helps pensioners; believes that its


reforms to the corporate tax system, which will result in the lowest ever rate of Corporation Tax, will be in the long-term interests of companies, shareholders and pensioners; and approves of the Government's introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee, Winter Fuel Payments, the re-introduction of free eye tests and commitment to concessionary travel for the elderly as part of its strategy to provide security in retirement.

Devolution

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We now come to the next motion, which concerns the implications for the Westminster Parliament of Scottish and Welsh devolution. Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales need to work not only in the interests of the people of Scotland and Wales but for all the people of the United Kingdom and calls upon the Government to address the imbalances and tensions introduced by the establishment of the devolved bodies; urges the Government to abandon plans for electoral reform at Westminster in the light of experience in Scotland and Wales; and calls upon all unionist parties to resist resurgent nationalism in every part of the UK.
The debate occurs against the historic backdrop of monumental changes in our constitutional structures. The period leading up to those changes has gone largely unnoticed in England, but I fear that that has now come to an end. As a result of last week's elections, the 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom population who live in England now find that their constitutional arrangements are very different from those that existed a few days ago.
It is worth pointing out that, five days after polling, there is still no government in either Scotland or Wales. Tonight, as we sit in the House of Commons, in Edinburgh, behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms—well-protected from the prying eyes of electorate—the unseemly scramble for power has well and truly begun. The Liberal Democrats, pushed into fourth place both in Scotland and in Wales, are engaged in the greatest car boot sale of principles since their last car boot sale of principles over closed electoral lists.
The job of the Opposition is to ask the questions about devolution that have never been properly addressed by the Government. During the referendum campaigns, and throughout the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998, Conservatives were criticised for pointing out flaws in the legislation. Despite our best efforts, many of those flaws remain and, unless they are dealt with, they will be a source of imbalance and friction within our new constitutional arrangements.
The simple fact is that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly need to work not only for the people of Scotland and of Wales, but for all the people of the United Kingdom. If we allow those bodies to fail, the United Kingdom will be finished. Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will work for the maintenance of the Union.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for showing his usual courtesy in giving way to me. I am not defending the Liberals—would not do that. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that those countries with long experience of electoral systems that are different from our own—I refer particularly to the Irish Republic and Germany—generally take some weeks over the negotiations for their Administrations. It would be foolish for those negotiations to be rushed.

Dr. Fox: The fact that other countries have to endure longer periods of instability than we do is hardly a


vindication of the system. However, the hon. Gentleman probably need not worry because the Liberal Democrats are probably easier to buy than most parties in the rest of the world.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: I will in a moment.
During the passage of the Scotland and Government of Wales Acts, we said that failing to deal with those legislative problems would create dangerous tensions and anomalies. We were right. We said that devolution would result in a resurgence of nationalism in both Scotland and Wales. We were right. We said that allowing Scottish Members of Parliament to make decisions on English matters at Westminster, when English Members of Parliament had no reciprocal powers to make decisions on Scottish matters would create new tensions. We were right. We said that devolution could lead to the break up of the Union. I hope that we were wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this critical point in his speech. Is he aware that the Procedure Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, is carrying out an in-depth inquiry into the procedural consequences of devolution? Has he read the Committee's first two interim reports? Will he accept from me that all members of the Committee will follow closely the deliberations and speeches in this debate, and that we shall bear them in mind before we produce our report in 10 days' time?

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention, as he has in the many Tea Room tutorials he has given me on the important work done by his Committee. We shall have to consider closely any procedural changes in this House: not only will we have to rebalance the interests of Welsh and Scottish Members here but we have to remember that this is a Union Parliament and that we all have a legitimate interest in what happens in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman might be a little more gracious. If the Liberal Democrats had not negotiated hard for their principles, his party would have not a single seat in the Scottish Parliament and only one in the Welsh Assembly. It is only because we stood firm for proportional representation that the Conservatives have any representatives on those bodies.

Dr. Fox: Just as they stood firm for the open list that they had cherished for so long. The Liberal Democrats stand firm for nothing except their own self-interest, and that is becoming increasingly apparent as the hours go by.
As in so many other areas of policy, the Government's plans on devolution are half-baked and ill thought out and, as usual, they have begun a process without thinking through how that process will end. That their plans are half-baked, there can be no doubt, for it was the Labour-dominated Scottish Affairs Committee that said:
we hope that the Government will not be overtaken by events and that when the pace of reform slackens, it will be found that all of the separately constructed pieces of the jigsaw puzzle will fit together".

The same Labour-dominated Select Committee said:
if there is an overall grouping showing how all the pieces will fit together, none of our witnesses were aware of it".
Seldom can such a damning condemnation of the intellectual basis of policy have been found in the pages of a report by a Labour-dominated Committee.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Select Committee—which is all-party, comprising Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National party and Tory Members—unanimously welcomed the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and wished it every success in future, in contrast with his churlish remarks this evening?

Dr. Fox: There is no difficulty in the hon. Gentleman's remarks being entirely compatible with mine—they are not mutually exclusive. The report was an all-party report and all the parties damned the Government's proposals; nevertheless, they all welcomed the Scottish Parliament, wished it well and hoped that it would succeed.
The Select Committee came late in the day to issues that have been raised in the House over an extremely long period. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not present, for this is surely one of his nights, given that what he has predicted for such a long time has now come to fruition and the West Lothian question remains unaddressed. Scottish Members of Parliament will find themselves without a say on matters such as education and health within their own constituencies. Incidentally, the potential for turf war is immense, with voters being able to choose between two constituency representatives and several top-up representatives; in addition, voters are unlikely to have read the schedules to the Scotland Act or to understand which powers are reserved and which devolved. However, what is more important is that those Members who find themselves semi-redundant in their own constituencies will still have a say on issues in England that are denied to them in their own Scottish constituencies.
That is no longer a hypothetical question; it is the new reality of Labour's new politics and it requires new answers, so I am delighted that the Secretary of State in waiting—the Minister for Education, Scottish Office—is here tonight to give those answers. How is the West Lothian question to be addressed?

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is likely that there will be further anger arising from the fact that Scottish Members of Parliament will be able to come down here and decide England's education and health issues while English Members of Parliament have no control over such issues in Scotland. That is illustrated by the row over tuition fees. The English already subsidise Scottish taxpayers, but what will happen if English parents on modest or middling incomes have to pay full tuition fees while tuition is free in Scotland? That would be outrageous.

Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. Now and again, the Government have to face up to one uncomfortable fact: they are the Government. They, not we, are the ones who have to deal with that anomaly, so it is up to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Chancellor to fight it out with the


Secretary of State for Scotland so as to ensure fair treatment for all people in all parts of the United Kingdom.
The current position of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales more closely resembles Whitehall farce than Whitehall competence. The Secretary of State for Scotland is at this very moment engaged in a shabby auction with the Liberal Democrats on the very issue of Scottish tuition, while remaining a member of a Cabinet which has collective responsibility for the imposition of student fees on English students. It is quite apparent that no politician can have two masters: the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales must resign from the Cabinet immediately on their appointment in Scotland and in Wales.
Who wins the trial of strength over tuition fees between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Treasury will provide an interesting indication of where things stand within the Government. In the devolved Parliament, will the Labour party be allowed to follow any policy different from that commanded by the Treasury and Downing street? Will power be devolved in reality, or only on paper, as many of us expect? That issue will also provide an interesting test of the Liberal Democrats' commitment as they aspire to join a coalition in Scotland. Will they be true to their election pledge that they would demand the abolition of tuition fees? Anything less than an absolute commitment, and the Scottish electorate will see them for the chanters that they are.
There are anomalies here at Westminster that must be dealt with, the first of which is the tax and spend anomaly. Currently all Members of the House of Commons are able to questions the Ministers who are directly responsible for how the Scottish and Welsh blocks are spent. Under devolution, although all Members of the House of Commons will be responsible for raising taxes, we shall have no mechanism for scrutinising how a large proportion of those taxes are spent. That weakening of our scrutiny, coupled with the devolved Members' detachment from tax raising, provides one of the most potent sources of conflict between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and Westminster. I expect the Secretary of State in waiting to tell us tonight how that is to be resolved, because failure to resolve the problem of tax and spend and scrutiny will not only betray the intellectual bankruptcy that lies at the heart of the Government's devolution policy but show the current Administration's callous disregard of the rights of the House of Commons.
One of the problems that must be faced is speculation as to the appropriateness of certain ministerial appointments. There can be no doubt about the legitimacy of the monarch appointing to her Government any Member of Parliament from any part of the United Kingdom to any post to represent any part of the United Kingdom. However, it must become difficult for any Member of Parliament representing a Scottish seat to hold ministerial office in, for example, health, education or—dare I say it—transport, for they would be responsible for matters of policy in England while having no say whatever in the same matters as they affect their own constituents in Scotland. That anomaly needs to be dealt with, because otherwise it will create unfairness and

uncertainty which are disadvantageous to the entire process of government and cannot help the process of devolution.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the conventions of our constitution have allowed Scots to take part in decisions in Cabinet even in respect of matters in which the Scots had no direct interest and even—as in the case of Lord Mackay of Clashfern—when the individual concerned did not represent an English constituency?

Dr. Fox: It might have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice but, as a Member of the House of Lords, Lord Mackay did not represent any constituency at all. It is worth noting that the conventions that have applied in this House are conventions relating to a Union Parliament, not to a Union Parliament with a devolved Parliament and a devolved Assembly. We shall have to find new conventions to govern proceedings in this place and in the two devolved bodies, and those will necessarily differ from the conventions that have governed our proceedings in the past. In addition, the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman mentions occurred when there were reciprocal rights between different parts of the United Kingdom, but reciprocal rights of representation have now disappeared under the system introduced by the Labour Government with the help of the Liberal Democrats.
We have had several debates in the House in recent months about proportional representation—in the context of Europe, devolution and the Jenkins proposals. It would be wrong of me not to thank the many Labour Members of Parliament who have offered their support in the past few days in the campaign to stop the Government introducing PR at Westminster. Many of them have said that they will have to do their duty and vote for their own side tonight, but that they are with us in spirit. They hope that we will effectively destroy any chance of introducing PR at Westminster. They can reciprocate by looking at the motions tabled for the various trade union conferences—which I believe are inspired by sources at Downing street—welcoming proportional representation. I hope that those who do not want PR at Westminster will put down motions at those trade union conferences ensuring that that view is made abundantly clear. They must not be used as puppets for Downing street as part of the Prime Minister's long-term plan to turn this place into a democratic poodle.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The motion on the Order Paper asks hon. Members to vote for the proposition that the Government should abandon any plans to introduce proportional representation at Westminster in light of the experiences in Scotland and Wales. Can the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position? Would the Conservatives have preferred to see last Thursday's elections in Scotland and Wales held under the proportional or the firstpast-the-post system?

Dr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman had attended the devolution debates in this place, he would have heard that we clearly favour the first-past-the-post system. We have never voted for proportional representation. It is typical


of the Liberal Democrats that they cannot see beyond their party interest. Our main argument against PR—especially PR at Westminster—is that it would result in instability in Government. The purpose of Government is to govern, not to be some mathematical exercise.

Miss Anne Begg: I understand why the Tory party in Scotland put up candidates for the Scottish elections. However, having lost out on the first-past-the-post option, is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the successful Tory candidates will not take up their seats in the Scottish Parliament because a discredited electoral system was used? That is surely the only honourable position for them to take.

Dr. Fox: We all make mistakes by allowing certain interventions. That is clearly a ridiculous notion. If the hon. Lady thinks that, because we did not vote for a particular electoral system, we will not play a full part in the new democratic process, she has some lessons to learn. If it were a question of consistency, I suppose that an anti-European such as Neil Kinnock would never have ended up a European Commissioner.
Every one of our warnings during the debates on proportional representation—we warned of instability, a lack of stable government, the disproportionate granting of power to minority parties and, worst of all, Government policies being decided by politicians after the election rather than by voters at the election—has been vindicated. Those elements are readily on show in the great Dewar-Wallace extravaganza that is being played out in Edinburgh. We can be sure that, after the Liberal Democrats' selling out on closed lists last year, few, if any, Liberal principles will not be available at bargain basement prices to allow the Liberal Democrats a sniff at the inside of a ministerial car.
Throughout the devolution debates, Labour promised us that devolution would kill nationalism "stone dead"—that was the phrase used by the Secretary of State for Defence. However, neither the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) nor the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) looked exactly moribund on Friday morning—indeed, I have seldom seen them looking so rosy about their own prospects. Nationalism is resurgent and all those who wish to see this country held together—albeit belatedly—must embrace the unionist cause that the Conservatives have championed for so long. We never wanted devolution, but we accepted the results of the referendums. We have said that we will try to make it work—and we will. However, no one can make it work while the contradictions and instability at the heart of the legislation remain.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that one interesting contradiction that has not yet been touched on is the question of ministerial accountability? Many routine decisions with cross-border implications will be made by the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. Although Westminster will have the power to intervene, the routine aspects of decision making will go to Edinburgh. The letter from the Prime Minister replying to my question of last week makes it clear that

the routine decision-making process regarding the Radioactive Substances Act 1963, for example, will lie with the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Fox: The situation is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. It is clear from the Prime Minister's reply that the House will not be able to scrutinise such decisions. We await with anticipation the announcement of the rather short job description of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we look to that office to enable this place to scrutinise what goes on in Scotland.
I have been asked why the Conservatives asked for this debate now that devolution has happened and the process is over. It is not over: this is the beginning of a process that will continue for some time. It will take many months, if not years, for us to appreciate fully the impact of the Government's flawed legislation. Their constitutional proposals are piecemeal, are a recipe for conflict and are ultimately unstable. If the Government genuinely want to hold the United Kingdom together, they must deal with the glaring flaws in the plans that they have already introduced. If they simply pretend that those flaws do not exist, the nationalists—those who want to separate the United Kingdom—will be the beneficiaries. This Government would then be guilty of setting countryman against countryman, and the Prime Minister would be remembered as the man who sold the Union.

The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, following the elections on 6th May, and the prospect of working co-operatively with these bodies and in particular the opportunity this presents to make government more democratic, accountable and inclusive within the context of a stronger Union.
The Tory party may have lost its nerve in the past few years, but it has never lost its cheek. The party that opposed devolution root and branch comes unblushing to the House tonight with a carping, petty and point-scoring speech by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He normally comes to this place with a leek in one hand and a Tam o'Shanter in the other. I notice that he sports the Union flag on his lapel tonight; yet behind him sits the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who wrote in today's edition of The Herald in Glasgow about the need for an English Parliament. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) described such calls as "English nationalism", which is every bit as dangerous to the union as Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism.
The hon. Member for Woodspring comes to the House tonight purporting to speak for those people whom his party rejected and who have rejected his party. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a very valid point. She pointed out that the 18 Members who were eligible to sit in the Scottish Parliament would not be in that position if it were not for the PR system. The hon. Gentleman has not offered one word of thanks for the fact that, if it were not for this Government and the new proportional representation system—which was adopted for the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—there would be no lifeline to the moribund Tory party in


Scotland and in Wales. We have tried to give the Conservatives a lesson in democracy, but they have learned nothing and they know nothing.

Dr. Julian Lewis: While the hon. Lady is giving lessons in democracy, can she explain to Conservative Members what is democratic about sharing power with the party that came not second or third, but fourth in the elections in Scotland and Wales?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is showing some pique at the fact that his party is not included. If he is so opposed to proportional representation, he could urge his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament not to take up their seats, but they will take them up because the Parliament will give some of them in the dying stages of their careers an opportunity to hold high office. We have given the Conservatives a lesson in democracy, but they have learned nothing.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend amazed not only by the arrogance of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), but by his lack of humility? The Conservatives are five points behind where they were in 1997, when they lost all their parliamentary seats. They appear to have learned no lessons.

Mrs. Liddell: Before the Scottish general election, we saw a penitent Tory party in Scotland with the attitude, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." First, the Conservatives were against devolution; then they were for it; and now it seems, from what the hon. Member for Woodspring has said this evening, that they are against it again. Throughout its history, the Tory party has been unable to rise to the level of great events. Last week's events were great. They mean that the governance of Britain will never be the same again—not worse, but better. Yet another of the pledges that we made to the people of Britain at the election has been honoured. Keeping promises may still be a fairly novel concept for the Conservative party, but for us it is the point of being in government.
The hon. Member for Woodspring claims that there is no Government in Scotland. He made a list of errors in his speech. He seems incapable of grasping the fact that devolution takes place on 1 July, when the powers are vested in the Scottish Parliament. Five days into a Parliament that will last for four years, it is beginning to pick up the reins of power that it will take fully on 1 July. When the devolved powers pass to the new Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales, a new, more modern Britain will be born. It will be a new democracy where the priorities are the people's priorities—truly a democracy for the many, not the few. The Tories lack the vision to see that devolution means better democracy for all the United Kingdom, including England.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: As the right hon. Lady is so keen on her party keeping promises, will she guarantee that Labour will keep its promise to charge tuition fees, or will it listen to its Liberal Democrat partners?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady seems to have forgotten the fact that the Government whom she supported set up

the Dearing committee. As usual, she is posturing on the issues. In Scotland, we have a new democracy which will be built on consensus. Last week, on the eve of the Scottish and Welsh elections, the House gave a Third Reading to the Greater London Authority Bill, which paves the way for an elected mayor and assembly here in London, so that those in the south will also be able to enjoy the benefits of devolution just as we enjoy them in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: If the right hon. Lady's argument is that it is democratic for the Scottish people to have a referendum and choice in their government, why is it not also part of her party's democratic strategy to let the people in England have a referendum on whether they would like their own Parliament?

Mrs. Liddell: I should be interested to know whether it was the view of the Conservative Front Benchers that there should be an English Parliament. That would be revealing.
Last week, the House voted on the Greater London Authority Bill, which paves the way for an elected authority here in London. Throughout England, regional development agencies are up and running. At the general election, we made it clear that we were committed to directly elected regional government in England where there was a demand for it. We have said that, in time, we shall introduce legislation to allow the people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want directly elected regional government. I stress the importance of local consent, because we know that some areas of England are less enthusiastic about devolution than others. Devolution is not about one-size-fits-all government. Already, some local authorities in England and their regional partners are setting up voluntary chambers.

Mr. John MacGregor: Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that the regional development agencies and assemblies in England—if they came about in certain regions—would have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament? Is she suggesting that they would be in any way equivalent?

Mrs. Liddell: There is no separate criminal law in the regions of England, but there is in Scotland. We shall build on the democratic will of the people in the regions of England to ensure greater accountability.
Much has been made of the role of the House in the new situation and of the alleged threat to it because of the changes that we have made. It is regrettable, but not surprising, that Conservative Members cannot see an opportunity to improve the operation of the House when they are confronted with one. They are so blinded by prejudice that they cannot see that the new governance of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and London will allow an opportunity to improve the business of the House. The Modernisation Committee will shortly be considering a proposal from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to revive and adapt the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. That would enable the House to debate the affairs of the English regions, along the lines of the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees.

Dr. Fox: Having failed to answer the previous two interventions, will the right hon. Lady tell us, given that


she is committed to such a democratic solution and understands the problems here at Westminster, whether the Government intend to do anything to answer the West Lothian question, which was first raised by a Labour Member, not a Conservative?

Mrs. Liddell: I shall come to the West Lothian question. The decisions that we hope that the Modernisation Committee will take on issues such as the Standing Committee of Regional Affairs should give the regions of England an opportunity to have a voice. The hon. Member for Woodspring shakes his head. I seem to remember his one-time friend, Mr. Michael Forsyth, saying that the Scottish Grand Committee could be an alternative to a devolved Parliament. It patently is not. The same gentleman marched up the Royal Mile in Edinburgh behind a large stone, believing that that would give democracy back to the people of Scotland. I immediately think of the emperor and his new clothes.
I promise that we shall not pack the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs with Scottish Members in the way that, over nearly four decades, Conservative Governments under Harold Macmillan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Lady Thatcher and the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) packed Scottish Standing Committees with English Members to vote down the will of the Scottish people. I remind the House of one case in particular—the poll tax. The hon. Member for Woodspring talks about the West Lothian question as though it were a new problem. It is not. We in Scotland suffered from the home counties question, the Devon question, the Cornwall question, the Norfolk question and the Suffolk question week after week as generations of Members of Parliament from the Tory shires, press-ganged into Committee service, marched into the Division Lobbies to vote down the Scots without ever having heard a word of the debate. That is what I mean when I say that they have not lost their cheek. Let them come here and confess how they treated the House and the Scots within it. I promise the House that this Government will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government. We believe in the new politics and the new democracy, even if some Conservative Members give us cause to wonder whether they are worth it.

Dr. Fox: In that case, why do the Government not propose to reduce the number of Scottish Members at Westminster at the next election?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that those are matters for the boundary commission, which is independent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Opposition Members are now challenging the independence of the boundary commission. I wonder whether the leader of their party agrees that the commission is not independent.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: I should prefer to make progress, but I shall allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later.
The House is not the English Parliament. It has not been reduced to being a rump Parliament. It has been, is, and will continue to be, the Parliament of all the United

Kingdom. That is what the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland want. They are not separatists. Last week's votes in Scotland and Wales were votes against separation, not—whatever the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru may claim—the first step towards it. The most separatist statements that have been made since last weekend were made by the hon. Member for Billericay in today's newspapers and, I understand, in a pamphlet that will be issued tomorrow.
The majority of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no difficulty in viewing themselves as British. It is clear from the reaction of ordinary people in England that the vast majority wish the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales godspeed. The English are not well served by the hysterical ranting of Conservative Members.

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Lady has not addressed any of the issues or answered any of the questions. She has made many bogus points, including a reference to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. Is she seriously suggesting that such a Committee is equivalent to the Scottish Parliament, and is she aware that there may be only one debate on the regions every two years? Is she further aware that no votes are taken in that Committee and it is simply a talking shop? That is why, when it was last tried, it was abandoned.

Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps we are witnessing the right hon. Gentleman's inability to accept the facts, which is part of the problem of the Tory party's collapse at the previous general election. The Standing Committee on Regional Affairs is not envisaged as an alternative to the Scottish Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman is advocating an English Parliament, I would be interested to know the view of his Front-Bench colleagues on that matter.
It is necessary to take account of, and articulate the differences between, the various regions of England. We are anxious to find an opportunity better to address those subjects in debates in the House.

Mr. Grieve: If it had been suggested during our debates on Scotland that regional variations in Scotland should cause us to set up two Parliaments there, I am sure that the right hon. Lady would have been the first, followed by her many Back-Bench colleagues with Scottish constituencies, to cry foul. Why, therefore, does England have to be regionalised in the way that she describes when there is an English identity?

Mrs. Liddell: It is a matter of what the English people want. Even after all this time, the Conservatives have not caught on to the distinctive difference between Scotland and England on legislation. Devolution has existed for the better part of a century because we have had separate legislation for Scotland. The hysterical ranting of Conservative Members would put to shame the rivalry on football and rugby pitches.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Lady try to resolve a problem which may arise? Would the Government and the Secretary of State take the view that they had the power to intervene if, for example, the Scottish Parliament decided to abolish tuition fees? I have friends in Scotland who believe that the Government could intervene under section 35(1)(b) of


the Scotland Act 1998. Would it not help to relieve present uncertainties if the Government made it clear whether they consider the Scottish Parliament entirely free to make a decision on tuition fees, or whether the Secretary of State would have the powers to intervene under section 35(1)(b)?

Mrs. Liddell: Those are hypothetical matters, which are under discussion at present. I remind the hon. Gentleman—who was once, I recall, the Member for a Scottish seat now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—that devolution means devolution.
We have heard the sterile arguments of the separatists and the anti-devolutionists, and those have now been exposed. It is time now to concentrate on those English Tories—I say "English" deliberately, because at present there is no other kind—whose xenophobia about Europe has now developed into spite about other parts of the United Kingdom. Yes, devolution means a substantial transfer of power, but in no way does it mean that the responsibilities of the House will be reduced to matters that are reserved to it or, indeed, to matters relating to England. The Government will continue to be accountable for the activities of all the main Government Departments, and none of the UK Departments, apart from the Scottish and Welsh Offices, will have its activities reduced after 1 July.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already, and I want to make progress. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House want to intervene.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Referring to the West Lothian question, the right hon. Lady said that it would be up to the English people to decide whether they wanted their own assembly or Parliament. Is she therefore stating that the English people—I mean those in the whole of England—will be offered a referendum to decide whether they want their own Parliament?

Mrs. Liddell: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen. I made the point clearly that it would be up to different parts of England to decide whether to have their own assembly. We shall introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that those assemblies could be set up if they were required.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No, I want to make progress.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) does not want to acknowledge that the Government are prepared to listen to the people of the different parts of England, as we have listened to those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Evans: If the right hon. Lady is listening to the people of England, will she therefore state whether the people of England as a whole will be offered a referendum on whether they want their own Parliament?

Mrs. Liddell: I am intrigued by that question, which leads me to ask whether we are to assume that the view

of the official Opposition is that there should be a referendum for an English Parliament. That is a significant admission by the Opposition that they favour an English Parliament. Does the Leader of the Opposition accept that position? I think that we should be told. [Interruption.]

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear this important debate because of the Opposition's bantering.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That matter can safely be left to the Chair.

Mrs. Liddell: I return to my point about referendums. We pledged in our general election manifesto—we have kept yet another of the pledges that we made to the people of Britain—that, if parts of England want a devolved assembly, we will put in place the necessary legislation to allow a referendum to take place. I am amazed that Conservative Members are confused by that point, given that London was one of the first areas to be dealt with, and the House was debating those matters as recently as last week.
I do not deny that the new arrangements will take some getting used to, especially for those English Tory Members who table questions to the Secretary of State about matters for which he will no longer be responsible after 1 July. However, I am sure that they will find another interest to keep them amused.
Let me make it clear that there is a legitimate role for Scottish members in relation to Government decisions relating to English spending proposals—and, indeed, vice versa.

Mr. Grieve: How?

Mrs. Liddell: The Barnett formula means that public expenditure decisions in England have direct consequences for Scotland and Wales, and vice versa. We have no plans to change those arrangements.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No; I want to make some progress.
Let me tell the House about the mailbag that I receive, as a constituency Member. I am sure that all my colleagues, as constituency Members, receive the same mailbags. The bulk of the casework received by Scottish Members of Parliament concerns pensions, benefits, the Child Support Agency, the new deal and immigration—and Scotland is not an insular community. Only yesterday, the general assembly of the Church of Scotland turned its attention to the problems of third-world debt, an issue that is raised with me during nearly every visit that I make to Scottish schools.
Let me also pay tribute this week to the people of Glasgow, Renfrew and East Lothian, who have opened their hearts and their homes to refugees from Kosovo. Many Scottish troops have served in the Balkans, both in flying missions and in helping refugees.

Mrs. Gorman: English, too.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady shrieks, "English, too." Let me say to her—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) must not shout from a sedentary position, or keep seeking to intervene, when it has been made clear to her that she will not be allowed to intervene.

Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I said earlier, the English are not well served by hysterical rantings from Opposition Members. When the people of Scotland have experienced terrible tragedies such as those in Lockerbie and Dunblane, we have drawn great strength and comfort from the embrace of others in lands both far and near. That will not end with devolution. We are part of a partnership: we are stronger together, and we are weaker apart.
This will be an adaptable Parliament. When it is not debating United Kingdom matters, it is bound to address the concerns of representatives of English constituencies. Both the hon. Member for Woodspring and the right hon. Member for Devizes have themselves made it clear how difficult it would be to determine issues that are exclusively English, because so many English issues have an impact on other parts of the United Kingdom. Primary legislation for Wales remains the responsibility of this House. Most legislation has wider UK implications—and, as Opposition Members are fond of pointing out, there are European Union connections as well.
Let me say to those who advocate a purely English parliament, as does the hon. Member for Billericay—

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No. I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I wish to make some progress.
The fact that I say to the hon. Member for Billericay that this Government do not see a case for an English Parliament—I increasingly wonder whether that is now the stance of her party's Front Benchers—does not mean that they are not keen to find ways of dealing more effectively with issues affecting the English regions.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman seems to be having difficulty in understanding what "No" means.
I remind hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is actively pursuing the matter in the Modernisation Committee. There may be a need for some procedural change once we benefit from the experience of devolution in practice, but there is no case for making such changes until we see devolution in operation.
The changes that were voted for by the people last week, and will be implemented within a very few weeks, are indeed momentous. Tonight, we have heard the same kind of sniping that accompanied the birth of these proposals. We have heard the bogus constitutional arguments, and we have witnessed the frenzied inability to comprehend the Government's arguments. But that will soon be a thing of the past. The proposals will come to be accepted by the House, and in an astonishingly short time—perhaps in a few years—the relevance and importance of devolution will hardly, if ever, be questioned.
Devolution is what the Scottish people have wanted, and they now have it. It was promised by the Labour party more than a hundred years ago. Far from worrying about the haste with which it has been introduced, I am only sorry that it has taken so long. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of John Smith's death, the unfinished business that was John Smith's unfinished business—I say this as his successor—is now completed. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a matter of some regret—but not, perhaps, of surprise—that the speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) demonstrated neither great historical understanding nor any comprehension of the present satisfaction in Scotland with what has been done, and the conduct of the elections that have taken place in both Scotland and Wales in the past week. There has been great satisfaction about the fact that electors in both countries have grappled with unfamiliar electoral systems, and have put in place bodies that will start their lives with great good will.
In Scotland—in contrast with what happens in this House—all the political parties have made declarations of intent to make their Parliament work. Although it is recognised that there are matters still to be decided in regard to ways and means of doing business, there is widespread satisfaction about the fact that there, at least, the Scottish debate is concluded for the time being. Elected representatives can now get on with delivering what the public look to them to deliver.

Dr. Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No. I have only just begun my speech, and I do not intend to jump up and down like a jack-in-the-box in response to interventions from Conservative Members who seem to think that the proper way in which to conduct the debate is through a series of interventions disrupting the flow of argument.
Although it is recognised that there are matters still to be decided, there is satisfaction about the outcome. The focus of the political discussion therefore moves from the structures to the new directions of policy that are expected from the new bodies, and it is high time that it did so. As we in Westminster come to terms with those developments, we should remind ourselves that although—in conceptual terms—the new bodies are our creation, they will have a life of their own. Although we defined their powers, they will do things in their own way. It is right that they should, for their members owe their election to the people, and are every bit as legitimate as we are here.
The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have no need for the historical conventions that we have inherited in this place, and which we are usually too slow to transform. In particular, I believe that they will disappoint their public if they pay attention to our too adversarial ways—of which we heard a classic example earlier from the hon. Member for Woodspring.
Another observation can be made. Owing to a system of election that predictably denied any single party an overall majority, all parties will bear a continuing responsibility for the quality of the Governments of Wales and Scotland. Governments led by a party with only a minority of seats will have to heed the views of other parties.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to a question that I put to the Minister of State, who significantly failed to answer it. What is democratic, fair or in any way an improvement in a system that allows a party—namely the right hon. Gentleman's party, which came fourth—to share power with the party that came first, to the exclusion of the parties that came second and third?

Mr. Maclennan: It remains to be seen whether there will be such a sharing of power. Furthermore, as all the parties are minority parties, whether or not any of them come to a formal agreement, those that are not within the agreement will still bear and share responsibility for the actions of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. The balance is quite different in the new bodies and it will not be possible simply to strike attitudes about the actions that are being taken, for, as no party has an overall majority, the other minority parties will be held to account if they, too, do not behave responsibly. That I believe to be a benign effect of proportional representation.
The other parties, whether in opposition or coalition, also have a responsibility to ensure that their criticisms are not captious and that their work is constructive. A minority party such as the Liberal Democrats must pay due regard to the fact that the Labour party in Scotland and in Wales has won more seats and more votes in the elections.
I do not doubt that there will be strenuous arguments within the new bodies in the future, but the happy difference between those debates and the ones with which we have become familiar at Westminster is that the protagonists in those Assemblies know that they may have to do business with each other, regardless of party allegiance. That, I believe, will lead to some tempering of the aggressiveness that was displayed by the hon. Member for Woodspring tonight.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland, I can report that there is keen interest there in recent developments in Scotland and Wales. Even the Unionists who are opposed to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement are anxious for devolution to be implemented in Northern Ireland by way of an Assembly up and running.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I hope that he will have a chance to develop later in the debate.
When British people criticise this House, they frequently express regret that our discussion is not more accommodating, more directed to seeking agreement and less to scoring points. The House of Commons may have something to learn from the style of the new bodies. In any event, I suggest that we stand back before we make any judgments about what is being done in Scotland and Wales.
It will not be too long before we can essay some comparison between our newly elected British parliamentary bodies and judge 'their openness, responsiveness and effectiveness in delivering what the British people voted for in those parts of the United Kingdom. For now, we would be wise to confine ourselves to making such procedural adjustments to our own ways of doing business as are necessary to take account of the existence and legitimacy of the devolved bodies.
We shall not need for much longer three separate territorial Departments, with their Secretaries of State coming before us to be questioned as frequently as before. Now is an opportunity greatly to slim the ministerial ranks, and, in the future construction of the House of Commons, to take account of the changed balance of responsibility between the Members.
The Government have already indicated that, in respect of Scotland, an approach is likely to be made to the boundary commission to reduce the direct representation of Scotland in the House. That is natural and just. I hope that, by the time that the boundary commission sits, the progress of devolution in other parts of the United Kingdom will have been sufficiently rapid and far advanced to make a general slimming of the House of Commons appropriate, as work is decentralised from the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall.
Although the case for separate territorial Departments is rapidly vanishing, it would be appropriate for the foreseeable future to retain a Minister of Cabinet rank with some responsibility for liaison between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments—a Minister who can ensure that there is equity in the treatment of the various members of the semi-federal United Kingdom. Such a ministry could help to provide for the proper channelling of concerns and proposals about the developing relationships of the different parts of the UK to each other.
The House will wish to consider in due course how to effect liaison with the other elected Chambers in areas of overlapping and cognate responsibility. Similarly, we shall wish to consider how to concert our dealings with the European Union where it is desirable to find a common voice. Preliminary thinking is in train in our Procedure Committee about those matters. We should await the expression of views from the new Assemblies in Scotland and Wales before arriving at conclusions about how best to effect proper liaison.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is addressing some of the important issues. The Minister did not seem to think that Scotland was part of a democracy—that was one of the arguments that she advanced. Does the right hon. Gentleman, who represents a Scottish constituency, feel at least a little uncomfortable about meddling in transport or education—matters over which he has no


influence and into which he has no input in Scotland—and wanting to affect the balance of the argument in England and Wales? We are no longer a body corporate. That is part of the problem. The Liberal gung-ho about the future is all very well, but we have practical problems before the House. What is the standing of a Scottish Member of Parliament in relation to the business that relates exclusively to England and Wales?

Mr. Maclennan: By defining the problem in terms of what is exclusively related to England and Wales, the hon. Gentleman reveals the difficulty of accepting any proposition that would separate the Scottish representatives in the House from debate. There are few matters affecting the example that he gave—transport—that do not touch Scotland. In his book, future arrangements for servicing the channel tunnel, for example, might be a matter of concern only to English Members of Parliament. That is not how it is viewed from the north of Scotland. Similarly, within the United Kingdom—

Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I am dealing with one point. Intervention upon intervention is not necessarily helpful for carrying the argument forward. There are matters which, although they are predominantly of concern to those immediately affected, have a ripple effect on the whole of the United Kingdom.
I see us moving towards a federal Parliament in which there will be concurrent responsibilities for many of the matters that are at present regarded as exclusive. I hope that, in debates in that federal Parliament, there will be a full voice for Members from all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Until we have reached that happy outcome, we are bound to face some anomalies, but they are unlikely to be anything like as troublesome to the English as have been the anomalies of the oppressive use of their parliamentary majority in England to the Scots over at least two generations.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hear his comments about the difficulty of defining precisely the items of business that would affect only England and Wales, without having any effect on Scotland. Would not one acceptable way forward, at least as an interim measure, be that Scottish Members might exercise a self-denying ordinance and simply refrain from voting on business in which they feel they should not be involved?

Mr. Maclennan: That convention would certainly run with the grain of my thinking about the undesirability of my voting in this place on matters with which I am not particularly engaged, but I do not know that the Whips in any of the parties would follow such a lead with great enthusiasm.
Another point needs to be made about the difference between Scotland and England in these matters. Effectively, the Scots and the Welsh have been in a minority for a long time; they always will be, because of demography. That minority has had to accept being trampled upon, over and over again. For demographic

reasons, I cannot for the life of me see how the Scots and the Welsh will ever be in a position to do the same in reverse—it baffles the imagination.

Mrs. Gorman: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Scots have been trampled upon by this Parliament in past decades. Can he explain why the Conservative majority in this House, throughout the past two decades at least, kept in place the Barnett formula, which greatly advantaged the Scottish electorate with additional expenditure of 23 per cent. on their health programme and 25 per cent. on their education? How is that trampling on Scottish feelings?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not want to go into the details of the Barnett formula, which was accepted across the parties and whose successors have built upon it for decades. The principle was broadly accepted that it was equitable. If the hon. Lady is saying that there should be some inequitable settlement imposed on the Scots, she is merely fortifying the point that I am making: in the tax-raising as opposed to the tax spending effects, we have suffered oppression. The Minister of State referred to the poll tax, which was deeply resented and could be the reason for the Conservative party's disappearance, to vanishing point, from Scotland's representation in this Chamber.
I am not saying that we should not in any way alter the proceedings of this place to take account of those developments in respect of English business and Welsh business. Serious consideration has to be given to that, but I believe that the Minister of State is right—I was particularly glad to hear her say so trenchantly tonight—that the ultimate solution to these problems lies in the Government's commitment to decentralisation in England, which we support. That is the key.
We have long advocated devolution all round. Gladstone, I believe, was the first to coin that particular expression and I am interested in the fact that the Labour party also had contemporary thinking on it. However, the disparity in power between Gladstone and Keir Hardie when that expression was first voiced was a little considerable.

Dr. Godman: A little.

Mr. Maclennan: It has to be said that neither party has been notably effective in bringing devolution to the statute book, but it was extremely encouraging to hear the Minister of State speaking as she did tonight, for I am quite sure that she is right to see devolution as the way to end anomalies.
We are not saying that a uniform system of decentralisation should be imposed on the whole of the United Kingdom. The Minister of State is right to say that devolution should reflect what people want in different parts of the country and that it should proceed at the speed that people want. We have seen that happen in other countries with great effect—notably in Spain, where devolution has not proceeded in an imposed form, but has grown from beneath. That is what will happen here, I think.
I particularly want to pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, because he deserves a great deal of credit for having driven the process forward. What has been done,


sometimes in the face of opposition from those who are tidy minded, has taken the process of local decision making far further forward.

Dr. Fox: Why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that devolution should be pan-national in Scotland and in Wales, but regional in England? Is it because he sees England not as a nation, but as a conglomeration of regions?

Mr. Maclennan: I see within England very great differences of identity. The north-east and Newcastle are not likely to respond positively to a London Government being imposed on them by someone who is devising a pan-English solution.
The thrust towards devolution is the desire to achieve decentralisation—not the desire to express national identity alone—and to adapt systems of government to the demands of the societies in which we live and make them fit our needs. Where those needs are different—they are patently different in different regions of England—they should be reflected in a structure that allows those differences to be expressed in different choices of priority, in different public expenditure priorities and even in different systems of taxation. That is the nature of a federal solution and the nature of the solution that I want this country to move towards.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I am taking a little longer than I intended, but I will give way.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The whole point about accountable government is that those who raise the money and determine how to spend it are accountable to an electorate. That function—the totality of central Government expenditure—will be determined in this Chamber, but it will be driven by priorities for which we will be held accountable by the local Parliament or Assembly. There will be conflict in that arrangement, will there not? Unless those authorities in Scotland and in Wales can raise money, how will that arrangement be justified? The Barnett formula will be under threat.

Mr. Maclennan: Thinking will develop on tax raising as on tax spending. In due course, there may be a federal funding response to the development of federal responsibilities, which I would certainly welcome. People in New York city pay income tax to three bodies—the city, the state and the federal Government. A development along such lines would be extremely rational and welcome in this country, but we are some way from that.
In the meantime, we must attend to the immediate task of overseeing the work of government in the regions of England. The Minister of State is right to say that that can best be entrusted to the work of Committees of this House, following the pre-devolution pattern in Scotland and other parts of the UK. That is entirely a matter for this House, and we look forward to the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation to see what recommendations may come from our colleagues.
I conclude by making a heartfelt statement of my satisfaction with the constitutional developments that have been marked by the elections in Wales and Scotland,

which have confounded the enemies of promise. There can be no turning back now. The British unitary state is giving way to a more complex and more flexible organism, in a settlement that I think is based on consent.
The new structures will draw their strength from that consent, and from the extent to which they embody the aspirations of the widely diverse societies within the UK. Although diverse, those societies are not opposed to each other. Each amplifies the awareness of the other, as in an harmonic progression. Each is enriched by its involvement with the other. Its shared assumptions as well as its subtly different values; that is the contemporary purpose of the UK—to offer its citizens the chance to live without constraints of conformity to a centrally imposed political order.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to participate in this debate, and I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I was one of the only English Labour Back Benchers to contribute to the Committee proceedings on the Scotland Act. I regret the absence of hon. Members from England, particularly Labour colleagues. I am worried about that, because it betrays the fact that people have not realised that the legislation and tonight's debate relate to the UK. The Scottish and Welsh devolution legislation was UK legislation, which has a profound and irreversible effect on our relationships in these islands and on our entire constitution. I am worried about the absence of real debate in England about what is happening in the other parts of the UK.
I approach this matter as someone who was interested in, and advocated devolution for, Scotland in 1968. I was a disciple of John P. Mackintosh, the former right hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. He—and I, in my humble way—advocated devolution long before it was fashionable in the modern Labour party. Although the party had advocated it in earlier epochs, it was not until after the 1974 general election that Labour became converted to it.
I remember those times, when Jim Sillars was absolutely opposed to Scottish devolution and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was in the Labour party. I do not remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was a tremendous advocate of devolution, but I am sure that he was. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), advocated devolution when he was in the Liberal party.
I was there, and I have been consistent. Being a disciple of John P. Mackintosh, I feel entitled to remind my Front-Bench colleagues that, while he advocated devolution to Scotland, he was also a United Kingdom federalist. He believed in devolving to the whole of the UK.

Mrs. Liddell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: I was going to entertain a presumption against giving way because of time, but seeing as it is one of my mates, I will.

Mrs. Liddell: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He refers to John P. Mackintosh and to our commitment to


devolution in 1974, which was formalised in a party political broadcast involving John P. Mackintosh, Jim Sillars—and me.

Mr. Mackinlay: I remember that I first heard my right hon. Friend at a by-election in Berwick and East Lothian in 1978, following the sad and untimely loss of John P. Mackintosh. He advocated federalism throughout the UK, and that is the point that I want to make. He recognised, as I do, that Scotland had its own history, culture and law making. In a sense, it had its own separate Government, although not its own separate legislature. Those were compelling reasons for devolving to Scotland, but he advocated devolution throughout the UK—something we have not heard enough about tonight—on grounds of good governance and modernisation.
That is why I go along with the Government amendment tonight, although it does not go far enough. I am a moderniser and a radical, and I want to devolve real powers to other parts of the UK. I am fairly agnostic as to whether there should be an English Parliament or regional Parliaments within England. However, I believe in constitutional symmetry and, as sure as night turns into day, some day we will have to address ourselves to that. It may be a score of years down the road, and I do not know whether any of us will be in the House then. If we are, I will remind people that the matter was raised on this occasion.
I was proud of the fact that, in our manifesto, we said that we wanted to reverse remote government and to modernise government. The Government have a proud record of advancing constitutional change and reform. However, as someone who supports the creation of the Greater London Authority and the emergence of regional chambers, I say that they are good, but they are no substitute for proper, directly elected law-making bodies in the rest of the UK. We will have to tackle that matter for a raft of reasons, one of which is the need for constitutional symmetry throughout the UK. There may be variations on that theme, but the GLA will never be a legislative body, and the regional chambers—elected or unelected—will never be legislative bodies. We have to recognise that decision making has to be brought down to the most local level.
It is absurd that I was held on a two-line Whip to vote on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I am sure that the Bill was extremely important, but it should have been a matter for our friends in Wales; it should not have been a matter for us here. Equally, if there is a London taxi Bill, it will not be the business of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Those are matters that need to be dealt with sensibly by people at a local level. It would make for better decision making as well.
It does not matter how often my colleagues refer to the Greater London Authority and regional chambers. It will not overcome the lack of constitutional symmetry, so I urge them to reflect on the matter. I am reasonably comfortable at the present time because there is dynamism in our constitutional reforms. We cannot do everything overnight with the wave of a magic wand, but there are certain issues that we cannot sweep under the carpet.
The West Lothian question was raised famously by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who opposes devolution. I raise it as someone who is a passionate advocate of devolution and of a federal United Kingdom. It is an issue for us all; it will not go away.
I depart fundamentally from the view of Her Majesty's Opposition on this point. I think that the current position can be sustained in the immediate period because there is dynamism in the reforms and we have to make interim arrangements, but it is foolhardy in the extreme to suggest that, a score of years down the road, that can be sustained.
In any event, much as I love the Prime Minister and my party, we are not omnipotent. I suspect that, one day, there will be a change of Government. If there is a change on the worst possible terms and in the worst possible circumstances, things such as the Barnett formula, the scale of representation and the West Lothian question will be addressed. Therefore, it is much more important that we address ourselves to those issues now. If not, and they persist, there will be a constitutional perversity that will run contrary to our democratic principles and institutions. The situation is okay for the immediate period, but not for much longer.
I say to both sides: those of us in politics who have a long memory remember how my party used to complain about Northern Ireland Unionist Members holding Ministries. We found it unacceptable that Robin Chichester-Clark was a Minister in the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Also in those days, Northern Ireland constituencies had about 100,000 electors.
I do not think that artificially diminishing the number of representatives is a way of tackling the West Lothian question; it does not solve that question. I happen to believe that constituencies should be more or less the same electoral size throughout the UK. People might be given extra resources if their geographical area is large; that is the way we should be dealing with our representation. Altering the number of people whom Members represent here, so that there is a disparity between the constituencies of colleagues from Scotland and England, is not a good, modern democratic system.
Reference has been made to whether Ministries are English. I remind Ministers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, said, rightly, when he was Opposition health spokesperson before the 1992 general election, that, if Labour won in 1992 and implemented its devolution legislation, it would not be possible for him to be Secretary of State for Health.
There is a powerful argument for the Prime Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends in Cabinet to consider whether they need a realignment of the Ministries. I recognise that the Department of Health has a primarily English jurisdiction, but it has a United Kingdom dimension as well. The Minister with responsibility for education is primarily an English Education Minister, but has responsibilities throughout the United Kingdom as well. In any event, that Ministry is now coupled with the Employment Ministry, which demonstrably has an all-UK jurisdiction.
The Prime Minister needs to reshuffle the pack, so that we at least bring into line some Ministries that are demonstrably English and that could be filled only by Members of Parliament representing English constituencies, as against others that clearly have some


pan-British competence. Such a change would be a logical step—but only an interim one, as it would not answer the West Lothian question—toward dealing with some of the immediate oddities arising from devolution.
I hope that Ministers—who are undoubtedly listening intently to the debate—will impress on the Prime Minister the case for addressing the issue, particularly as it affects the Department for Education and Employment, which provides a classic case of the need for two separate Departments.
Although I know that it will not cheer one of our colleagues—the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—I believe that United Kingdom regional legislatures and governments will complement and advance our deliberations on Europe, which after all is composed of regions.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Don't spoil it.

Mr. Mackinlay: Although I know my friend's views on the issue, I shall not give way.
I should like also to kill the ridiculous suggestion made by some hon. Members and some members of the press that the House of Commons has too many Members. It is true that, numerically, the House is one of the world's largest democratic legislatures; but we do too much in this place. All democracies of comparable size have federal arrangements. If we had a federalist system, we would be able to diminish our membership. In total, however, the United Kingdom has fewer Members than all the legislatures of the Federal Republic of Germany or of the United States of America.
Although I am very proud to be an hon. Member, I am not prepared to continue with the charade that we do things well in this place. We sit for longer than any other of the world's other Parliaments, and do so because we—like our Executive—deal with every issue from pavements to atomic weapons.
An absurd amount of stress and strain is placed on every British Prime Minister. Whereas the President of the United States and Germany's federal Chancellor deal with macro-economic policy, social policy, defence and foreign affairs, the British Prime Minister deals not only with all those issues, but with whether chess should be an Olympic sport, whether there is a problem in a Yorkshire canal, and with some other very important local issues besides.
We are simply trying to do too much. That fact becomes obvious when one examines other legislatures. In Germany, many of the most important issues of service delivery—in law and order, education, health and welfare—are addressed by the Lander in Munich, Bremen or Hamburg, for example. Elsewhere in the world, they are dealt with in Victoria, British Columbia, or in Sydney, New South Wales.
The federal Governments of those countries apply themselves to the real issues and to using better decision-making processes. In tackling modern government's extensive and increasing role, those federal legislatures sit less, but provide higher-quality deliberation and greater scrutiny and accountability than this overworked, under-resourced and inadequately prepared place can ever do.
I invite Ministers to consider another point. The Government's policy is that, if the English regions want them, we might have elected regional assemblies. Frankly,

people in Tilbury do not lie awake at night saying, "I'd love to have an East Anglia regional assembly." Then again, not many people in Wales were lying awake at night saying, "We want a Welsh Assembly."

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I was.

Mr. Mackinlay: Not many people were, though.
On the grounds of good governance, however, it was right to establish a National Assembly for Wales. One old-fashioned virtue of government is called leadership. We should be arguing for devolution on the grounds of good governance. That was the purpose of establishing the Assembly in Wales—which I think should be a law-making Assembly.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: Yes—the hon. Gentleman has been very good.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am fascinated and thrilled by the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that, irrespective of the views of all the people of Tilbury or Southend, and of his and my views as Members of Parliament, regional government is going ahead? Millions of pounds are being spent on setting up a regional government, based in Cambridge, affecting both Tilbury and Southend, but the people are not aware of it and we have not participated in it.

Mr. Mackinlay: That is why the hon. Member for Thurrock is saying that we should not be frightened of democracy. What is so dreadful about having elections? We should have elections to those bodies, because they are coming into being, as the hon. Gentleman recognises.
Before concluding, I have some other, minor points to make. Can there be some reciprocity of access between Members of this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Derek Wyatt: And the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed. That would be good, fraternal and healthy, especially in these early stages.
The previous Labour Government produced a White Paper, "Devolution: the English Dimension", at the time of the previous attempt to introduce Scottish devolution. It should be updated and we should have a full day's debate—instead of half a day—on the issue. Perhaps we could coax some English Labour Back Benchers to the Chamber.
I make no apology for raising the question of our overseas territories. In any federal assembly, the democratic deficit in respect of overseas territories should be addressed. Spain, the Netherlands, France and the United States all provide some limited representation for their overseas territories, no matter how small, in their legislatures. There is a compelling, overwhelming case for redress, especially for Gibraltar, which is part of the European Union but is currently disfranchised.
None of the issues to which I have referred will go away. The Government go on about being modern and radical—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,


whom I love and support very much, does a lot of that—but radicalism means tackling all the issues and not being bogged down in the Conservative excuses, which suggest that there is nothing to be dealt with in the English dimension. There is much to be done if we are to maintain and promote the unity of the United Kingdom, which has been so dangerously prejudiced by the attitude of the Conservative and Unionist party for so many years.
Conservative Members are like members of the Flat Earth Society on this question; they do not realise that, if they sustain their view, they will further endanger the Union. Equally, my right hon. and hon. Friends still have not fully thought through our responsibilities for devolving democracy and local decision making to the English regions and for dealing with the wider constitutional aspects.

Mr. Peter Luff: It is always a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), but it is a somewhat intimidating experience after that fine performance. I agree with almost everything that he said. As for his last few remarks, which were rather more partisan, I hope that I can persuade him that I, at least, believe that the earth is round.
If the hon. Gentleman spoke for Essex and for England, I will speak for Worcestershire and for middle England. This morning, in the paper that speaks for middle England, The Birmingham Post, the chief feature writer, Jason Beattie, wrote:
When Labour embarked on its great devolutionary experiment like some mad scientist let loose in a chemistry laboratory it started a chain reaction which it has no idea how to stop.
That reflects what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said so wisely today—we are not at the end of the story; we are not even at the beginning of the end; we are at the beginning of an experiment that leads we know not where.
Today, there has been a debate about tuition fees in Scotland. The tall oak of proper recognition of the English dimension is likely to grow from the small acorn of that debate. Today, we have heard that the Welsh Assembly is likely to vote to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban in Wales, and I say good luck to it, because it is the right decision. The long journey to a proper constitutional settlement for England is likely to begin with the English understanding of that single step of Welsh determination to do what is right for agriculture and for the people of Wales. Both those issues may dampen the enthusiasm of the Government for proportional representation. I certainly hope so.
I would not start from where we are. What I am about to advocate to the House is not my preferred solution. I would have approached the issue differently, but that is history and there is no point going over it again. We are where we are. English Members, and all Members of this United Kingdom Parliament, are left with a puzzling and complex conundrum—how to achieve two apparently contradictory aims. First, how do we give England a fair say in the new constitutional settlement and, secondly, how do we strengthen the United Kingdom? That is crucial, because the arguments for independence and separation did not die after the elections last week.
Many people who voted Labour in those elections still back independence, and we must respond imaginatively to ensure that the United Kingdom is strengthened, not weakened. In that respect, I was disappointed to hear the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) appear to say that there was no such thing as England, whereas Scotland and Wales were real countries. I assure them both that there is such a thing as England.
When devolution was proposed for Scotland and Wales, no one suggested for one minute separate regional bodies for the highlands and islands and for the lowlands. No one suggested separate bodies for north Wales, mid-Wales, south Wales or even for Swansea and Cardiff. However, the case for separating Wales into three component parts is just as strong as the one for separating England into its regions. The Government rightly rejected that route for Wales, and they should reject it for England for the same logical reasons. If the Government show such arrogant disregard for the views of the people of England, I predict that tensions will begin to mount.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I respect the fact that there is a country called England, with great traditions. Should not the hon. Gentleman put all his efforts behind the movement for an English Parliament?

Mr. Luff: I do not wish to give away the dramatic conclusion to my remarks, but that is exactly what I am about to argue.
The article in The Birmingham Post continues:
No one is happy now. Certainly not the Scottish who have tasted power and will want for more, nor the Welsh where the successful nationalists will want something better than the talking shop they have been given, and definitely not the English who are bewildered by the whole exercise which has left them in an anomalous and undefined position.
In our new murky world, the Frankensteinian result of Dr Blair's mischievous meddlings, the English are the power without a decent throne. The incongruities are legion.
I shall not go over those points again, because my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring did that so well in his opening remarks. He talked about funding and over-representation. We have discussed the fact that the Cabinet is dominated by Scots Members. The hon. Member for Thurrock made some intelligent and interesting suggestions about how we could deal with the problem of English issues being decided by Scottish Ministers. Although the dry-as-dust constitutional issues still rightly concern the House, the bread-and-butter issues have now come to the fore. I think that I am supposed to say the "kitchen table" issues, which they are literally in the case of beef on the bone, and metaphorically in the case of university fees. Who knows what the next of those kitchen table issues will be? Whatever they are—and the two that I have mentioned took the Government by surprise this week—the English sense of grievance will grow.
To address Englishness is not, as the Minister seemed to suggest, an appeal to crude nationalism. The opposite is true. Anyone who reads the works of Stanley Baldwin, or even the recent book by Jeremy Paxman, can quickly knock that idea into touch. Try telling the Anglican church that to be English is in some sense crudely nationalistic. That is simply not the case.
The House must, however, understand that unless the mainstream political parties, represented in this Chamber, grapple seriously with the issue of how to address Englishness, other much less pleasant forces will do the grappling for us. In my home city of Worcester, we recently faced the prospect of a National Front march. The British National party has been campaigning on the issue already. Unless we address the question of Englishness and defuse it, the consequences could be extremely serious. That is why I am so pleased that the Conservative party decided to have this debate, which I predict will be the first of many on this important subject.
The Government know that there is a problem, and accept that the constitution is no longer balanced. That is why the Minister, in her opening remarks, offered the English the insulting idea of a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, as if that were some sort of answer to the Scottish Parliament and Wales's National Assembly. I used to support the Minister's idea, but no longer.
Regionalism is wrong, for many reasons. I shall not run through the list, as I have done so at least twice before in the House. Regions have none of the sense of identity from which governance must flow. Democracy depends on that sense, but I have no identity with the west midlands. I accept that it is a useful administrative concept for the delivery of services, but it does not serve for the establishment of legitimate democratic institutions.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that billions of pounds of public money is spent at a regional level on vital matters such as the economy, the environment, education, housing, and so on? Does he also accept that the previous Conservative Government recognised the importance of regions when they set up Government offices for the regions?

Mr. Luff: The hon. Lady obviously was not listening, although the people of Blackburn and Blackpool will have been aware of her mismanagement of the county council when they decided to opt out of its control.
Regional government is a useful administrative idea, but it is not a democratic concept. I do not belong to the west midlands and have no part in it, although I like Birmingham a lot. However, what about the south-west, bits of which lie further north than my constituency in Worcestershire? For example, the village of Willersey in Gloucestershire is well to the north of Broadway. Would Bournemouth, or the Isles of Scilly, be part of some south-west region? It is a ludicrous proposition that makes no sense at all.
In a shamefully loaded opinion poll by MORI, The Economist asked people whether they wanted regional government. However, people were not told what would go with it—the abolition of at least one tier of local government. The tier most at threat is the county council, but that is the one layer with which people identify. Counties have a thousand years of history.

Miss Begg: I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about losing the county council. The previous Conservative Government got rid of the district councils in Scotland. If that was good enough for Scotland, why not for England?

Mr. Luff: I shall not get into a full debate about local government, which would risk being ruled out of order.

Suffice it to say that I believe that the idea of unitary authorities is good and sound, and I should quite like Worcestershire county council to be one. That is where I would put the power. I agree with the devolution of power away from the centre, but it should go to the genuine, respected and historic units of government in this country—the county councils. It should not go to those new monsters, the regions.
I shall surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) by saying that the last of the dangers posed by regionalism is the real and lively one, that Brussels will be able to divide and rule. The ambition is to have a Europe of the regions, but I do not want my region to turn into a dreary outpost of the European Commission in Brussels.
Regionalism does not answer the problem of legislation. The Scottish Parliament is a legislative assembly that takes real decisions. I did not want the Welsh Assembly, but now that it is here, I want it to be a real legislative assembly, taking real decisions. The regions of England will not be able to do that. There will not be one law for beef on the bone in the west midlands, and another in the south-west. Clearly, that is not on: the Government should accept that the idea of regionalism is dead in the water, and that it does nothing to answer the West Lothian question.
England must not feel that it has become a second-class citizen in the United Kingdom. I am driven to conclude—with some reluctance and hesitation—that the only answer is some kind of English Parliament. That would provide the constitutional symmetry of which the hon. Member for Thurrock spoke so persuasively. I also support increased powers for Wales in—I hesitate to use a word that is so unpopular and so often misunderstood—a federal United Kingdom.
I find myself praying in aid strange allies. I never thought that I would quote Enoch Powell in the House but, in the 1976 devolution debates, he said of the United Kingdom that
it is not possible for the same electorate to be represented directly in two legislative Assemblies unless one of two things occurs: either the unitary State must become federal, with a pre-determined area within which the one set of elected representatives is sovereign and another area in which the representation of the whole realm is to be sovereign: or there must sooner or later as a consequence be separation and the recognition of separate sovereignties."—[Official Report, 19 January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 998.]
It is precisely because I wish to avoid separate sovereignties that I am driven to agree that a federal United Kingdom is the only structure that will stand the test of time.

Dr. Godman: Am I right in thinking that more and more Conservative Members are coming to support a federal Britain? For some time, the more intelligent members of the Scottish chattering classes have been debating federalism versus separatism, and last week's election will not stop that debate.

Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Federation or separation is the choice that the United Kingdom must ultimately make. That is where we are being driven. I do not know how long it will take to get there, but that is the fundamental decision facing us. That is why I believe that it is crucial to have an intelligent debate, one not smothered in a blanket of regionalism that fails to address the fundamental question.
The motion calls for a fight against "resurgent nationalism". The only way to do that is to move as rapidly as we can towards a more stable United Kingdom. In her opening remarks, the Minister said that the Conservative party had shown an inability to rise to great events. On the basis of what she said, however, the Government do not understand the events that they have set in train. The Conservatives understand those events, and we are discussing them. I hope that we reach the right conclusion.

Miss Anne Begg: I have been disappointed by the debate, and particularly by Opposition speeches. The decision to debate devolution was taken by the Conservatives but, at a time of momentous events in Scotland, their debate has been sterile as they have raked over old coals.
Devolution in Scotland and Wales has serious implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. However, we have heard no positive questions, answers or practical propositions from the Opposition on how the two Parliaments might work together. Nor did we hear anything about how we could build on the success of the Scottish Parliament. Nor was there even a word about the lessons that we might learn from the way in which the Scottish Parliament does its business.
What we did hear from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was the same speech that he used during the referendum debate—on Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, at various stages during the Committee on that Bill, on Report and on Third Reading. I am surprised that when he reached into his drawer for his speech, no moths flew out—although I suppose that it has been in and out of the drawer so often that the moths have had no time to settle. Surely the debate has moved on. Devolution has happened, but the speeches we heard tonight have been disappointing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) looked into the future, and I agree with much of what he said about the constitutional make-up of the UK. I do not agree that there must necessarily be symmetry in our constitutional arrangements; Spain has operated happily with an asymmetrical system. However, issues about the better governance of England require to be addressed, and they are matters on which the English people must decide.
Some implications must be addressed in the short term. We must address the relationship between the two Parliaments. Little in the Scotland Act 1998 refers to that relationship but, if the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Parliament are to work together, relationships must be developed. It is important that we consider that.
I serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the role of which is being examined by the Procedure Committee. I should like to see its role enhanced and developed. It will certainly continue to have a role in scrutinising reserved matters that will impact on Scotland. I should like to see the Select Committee become much more a Back-Bench liaison committee. There is no reason why a Select Committee of this House cannot meet with members of a Select Committee of the Scottish Parliament,

perhaps to consider issues that have implications for both Scottish and United Kingdom legislation. Perhaps one way of developing the relationship and ensuring that the two Parliaments work together is for the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee and whatever Committee is set up by the Scottish Parliament—perhaps a United Kingdom Affairs Committee—to have joint meetings and investigations. We should develop such issues. They will change and they are not set in stone.
There may be lessons in the short and longer term that this House can learn from the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will do business differently. I hope that debates will not see the barracking that the Minister got from the Opposition tonight—to the extent that often it was difficult to hear what was going on. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will do things differently. It will be more consensual. There may be other things that it can do better than this Parliament. There is talk of its having pre-legislative committees, so that, by the time legislation reaches the Floor of the House, it will have been improved on the basis of evidence taken in a non-partisan, open, consensual way. Perhaps there are lessons for this place in that. Discussion of such ideas would have been a positive contribution to the debate, but we did not get much of that from Conservative Members.
We must also examine the role of the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish questions. Earlier, someone said that a Committee for the English regions would not be a substitute for a proper Parliament. Yet I remember the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, saying that the Scottish Grand Committee would be a substitute for a Scottish Parliament. Of course, the Scottish people had none of it. I contend that the Scottish Grand Committee has lost its role. I do not know whether there is a need for it any more, provided that the Scottish Affairs Committee survives. There is a balancing act to be performed and, if one Committee is to survive, I prefer that it be the Select Committee.
The role of Scottish questions will inevitably change and they should perhaps be shorter. No one on the Government Benches has any problem with that, but there will also be a need for a Secretary of State for Scotland because Scotland will still be part of the Union. This is not separation; it is devolution.
The hon. Member for Woodspring said that Scottish Members of this House were semi-redundant. The horny old West Lothian question came up again. The hon. Gentleman asked how we could possibly have Scottish Members of Parliament debating and voting on purely English matters. I have been in this place two years and in that time there has been no debate on Scottish education, no debate on Scottish health and no debate on Scottish land reform in which I could have taken part because there has not been time for such debates. That is why we wanted devolution. As a Scottish Member, I have not debated those matters during the time that I have been a Member of the House. It is not suddenly wrong for Members representing Scottish constituencies to be involved in English matters; that is the business of the House. This is still the UK Parliament and, as long as it continues to deal with English matters, all its Members may perfectly legitimately debate them.

Mr. Evans: During the hon. Lady's two years as a Member of Parliament, has she ever asked for an Adjournment debate on Scottish education?

Miss Begg: On one occasion during Scottish questions, an important issue was raised in relation to Scottish education and I wanted to be called to speak. An Adjournment debate is a Back-Bench matter; I want something more important—a debate involving the whole House. The hon. Gentleman has not been involved in such debates because they have not taken place on the Floor of the House as part of Government or Opposition business. There has been no time. There has been time for plenty of other matters, but not for those Scottish issues.
As Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, we hold a UK remit. There is no contradiction in that; there is no issue with which we cannot be involved. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, who said that he believed that a Scottish Member of Parliament could not be the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, for Health or for any other departmental responsibility without a UK-wide remit—although the Department for Education and Employment does have a UK remit and does not deal only with UK legislation. Under the remit of the UK Parliament, if an individual is good enough to serve, it is irrelevant where that person originates from or where his or her constituency is located. The Leader of the Opposition used to be Secretary of State for Wales, but he did not represent a Welsh constituency. Why should that be different from what will happen post-devolution?

Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather hypocritical for the Opposition to complain about Scots Members of Parliament voting on English matters when, for 18 years, from 1979 until 1987, we in Scotland had to suffer the unwanted, detested policies imposed on us by the UK majority of the Conservative Government when hardly any Conservative Members represented Scottish constituencies? As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education, Scottish Office, pointed out, the Conservatives used the Scots as guinea pigs for the introduction of the poll tax. They also caused us to resist fiercely and successfully the possible privatisation of water in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are being hypocritical? They like to give it out, but they do not like to get it; it is good to see them getting a dose of their own medicine.

Miss Begg: I would go further. If the Tory wipe-out in Scotland had happened in 1992 and not in 1997, I am sure that the 1992 Government would have imposed an English Member of Parliament as Secretary of State for Scotland. I have no doubt about that. I shall be interested to see whether any Opposition Member will challenge that. If there had been no Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland after the 1992 election, when the Tories were in power, would they not have imposed an English Member to decide on Scottish affairs? I would have had no problem with that, because, at that time, Scotland was part of the UK Government.

Dr. Godman: I have listened to my hon. Friend's remarks with a good deal of sympathy, but I disagree profoundly with her as to the continued existence of the Grand Committees, Question Times and

Select Committees. The House will have to face up to the possible elimination of the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees, Select Committees and Question Times.

Miss Begg: I would not go as far as that, but the situation is developing. There is no doubt that the Scottish Grand Committee has a lesser role, but Scottish questions will continue on subjects that remain the responsibility of the Scottish Office: for example, the oil and gas industry is a reserved matter and, because it is pertinent to my constituency, I shall continue to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland questions about it. However, my argument is that the nature of the Select Committee should change, so that it is not a conventionally constituted Committee of the House, but becomes a liaison Committee and takes on a different, additional role. Whether or not we call the new Committee the Scottish Liaison Committee rather than the Scottish Affairs Committee, it should be able to scrutinise the exercise of those powers that have an impact on Scotland but are reserved to this place.
The Labour party identified the need for a Scottish Parliament because it listened to the people of Scotland, and it fought two general elections promising to deliver that. The Scottish Tory party decided to fight the 1997 general election promising to vote against a Scottish Parliament, and it was wiped out. If, as appears likely from tonight's debate, the Tory party is considering fighting the next general election with the establishment of an English Parliament as its number one promise, the electorate can decide—that is what democracy is all about. If the Tories want to do that, there is nothing to stop them, but I suspect that they will not do it because they believe that people in England are not yet ready for an English Parliament. I am not saying that people in England are definitely not ready for that, but I suspect that the Tory party will decide not to make an English Parliament one of their election pledges because they think that the people are not yet ready or because the policy will not be popular. It depends on whether or not "listening to Britain" has worked.
Devolution has worked in other countries. There is asymmetric devolution in Spain and it works well—Spain was one of the countries visited by the Scottish Affairs Committee when we were producing our report. Our report did not damn the Government's devolution proposals, as the hon. Member for Woodspring said; it welcomed them. If other countries can develop and have a changing, dynamic constitution, I do not see why we in the United Kingdom cannot. There does not have to be instability in a constitution that is changing; such a constitution can be stable, as it is in Germany, the United States and Spain. The UK has a great deal to look forward to—things will change in future, but the House should welcome that. We should be congratulating the Scottish people on their good sense in voting for a Parliament that will reflect their needs and desires, and wishing the Parliament every success.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I intend to speak briefly and raise a few points about which I want hon. Members to think.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a delightful speech in which she spoke about her role in this Parliament and told us what questions she


intended to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland. I wonder whether hon. Members have thought about that. I have tried to find out: three weeks ago today, I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State on which subjects he would answer questions, and, as far as I can tell, the hon. Lady will be able to question the Secretary of State only about air sea rescue and ask him whether he will pay an official visit to Aberdeen.
To be frank, we have not thought this thing through. I speak as one who has always been opposed to devolution, root and branch, and as one who believes that it will all end up with a horrible constitutional shambles. My brilliant hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are right to attack the Government's policy, but the older ones like me should have more humility. We should not forget that it was the Conservatives who, for the same devious reasons that motivate the current Government, introduced devolution back in the time when our superb leader was the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Our chief objective tonight should be not to decide whether devolution is rubbish or good, but, now that it has happened, to put some specific questions to the Government that they must consider if devolution is not to end in disaster.
First, will the Government state clearly, precisely and unambiguously in what areas they believe they have the power to overturn the decisions of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly? Student fees are a perfect example. The Scottish Parliament has the power to scrap them, but the Government, under section 35(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998, have the power to say to the Scottish Parliament, "Get lost, you have no such power and your plans will interfere with our arrangements." I may be wrong, but the Government have a duty to state clearly and precisely—particularly with regard to reserved powers—where they believe they can and cannot interfere.
Secondly, we must face the problems that will stem from proportional representation and from having two groups of Members of Parliament in the Scottish Parliament. Hon. Members should reflect on what has happened in other countries with PR systems—we should not pick out only those countries where the system has worked. In countries with pure PR systems, instead of majority rule, the mad, lunatic fringe parties always hold the balance of power and run the show. I would not think of referring to the Liberal Democrats as the mad or lunatic party in Scotland—far from it—but we must face the fact that, basically, they are in charge at present and, because of PR, will determine policy vehicles and their form and direction.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has a long-standing interest in this matter. What would happen if there were a Euro MP, a Westminster MP, a regional MP and other regional non-constituency MPs plus councillors in Tilbury? To whom would the hon. Gentleman's constituents turn? Hon. Members should realise that, when an army of politicians represents a single area, it is an absolute nightmare. If Conservative and Labour Members have not thought about that, we will face a disaster.
I used to be a Member of Parliament in Glasgow. What will happen if a Glasgow constituent has a problem with a school or a hole in the road? When a series of Members

of Parliament represents different parties in an area, the only thing we can be sure about is that they will blame each other for any problems.
Thirdly, we must consider the West Lothian question and find an interim answer. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "It doesn't really matter because Labour has a big majority." That is the case now, but it will not last for ever. What will happen if the number of independents grows or some freedom is allowed in the Labour party? I know that an issue will emerge about which Labour Members have strong feelings—many of them are decent people—and they will not want simply to follow the party Whips. It is not good for Parliament if Scottish Members are to be allowed to determine English issues.
There is an easy answer. We could change the Standing Orders to recognise that, until further notice, Scottish MPs shall not interfere in, or vote for, matters relating to England and Wales. Such a rule would be easy to administer and would not create a constitutional nightmare. We must face the inevitable.
Fourthly, what will happen to England? I was horrified to hear the reply of the Minister—who is a delightful lady—to a question about the possibility of establishing an English Parliament. She said, on the one hand, that the Government might consider the possibility of regional government for England if that was what the people wanted, but, on the other hand, that the Government would not consider establishing an English Parliament, although the people might want it.
The Minister, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are well aware that basic regional government exists in England. We do not have elected assemblies, because people do not want them. There may be a demand for such bodies in the north of England because the people think that, like Scotland, they will somehow get extra cash. The hon. Member for Thurrock and I have some experience of regional government. We yearned to escape from the brutal rule of the Essex county council because Chelmsford was too far away. However, we now find that, under regional government, we will be subject to the rule of Cambridge. If the Government have any doubts about that, they should go to Tilbury and Southend tomorrow and ask how many people there know that they are part of the east of England region. Nobody apart from the consultants who want to make lots of money by carrying out surveys for the expensive new authorities knows anything about it.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South may be right. Perhaps this will turn out to be a wonderful, rosy, exciting constitutional experiment. However, I hope that they accept that there is just a possibility that the whole thing will turn out to be a costly and divisive flop, with non-stop, deeply felt rows between Edinburgh and London. I believe that devolution will develop in that way because the control of money will result in blackmail. Laws passed by the Scottish Parliament will be overturned by England by the front door or the back door.
Let us imagine that things go terribly wrong, as I fear that they will—I pray that I am wrong. Is there not a case for what we might loosely call a five-year review? After five years we should look at the issue again, see how the system has worked and see whether it is worth carrying on. If it is going to create tension, cause problems and create a lot of unnecessary extra expenditure with an army


of politicians creating a constitutional nightmare, should we not have some procedure to allow us to think again? I say in all sincerity that I am not trying to bash the system. I hope that it succeeds, but I fear that it will be a great disaster. Surely there should be a procedure to enable us to think again if everything goes wrong.
There is a real danger of a constitutional nightmare. I fear that there will be a wild increase in spending and regional government will be forced on England regardless of whether the people want it. That is surely wrong. I hope that the Government will show humility, accept that they might be wrong and agree to a five-year review. That is the right way forward.
Finally—I promise that I shall sit down after this point—many years ago, before most hon. Members here were in Parliament, I had the pleasure of being the leader of the Scottish Conservative party. That was not because I was good, but because there were not many of us around. The other reason was that our splendid leader, Lady Thatcher, had the same views on devolution as I did. Unfortunately, the rest of the Scottish party thought that devolution was wonderful. We fought the 1979 election on a policy of total opposition to all that nonsense. We took the nationalists head-on. We made people think about independence, which was their logical policy. As a result, they disappeared. We wiped them out.
Unfortunately, as I warned Lady Thatcher, making the SNP vote disappear meant that the then Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Cathcart had to disappear as well. However, it was a good bargain for Scotland to get rid of the SNP and devolution, even if it meant that I had to go as well. I hope that the Government will think again. They think that they are solving a problem with devolution. I think that they are creating more. I hope that I am wrong.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I regret that the debate has been so short, because there have been some interesting and stimulating contributions. I am pleased that some English Members have had the opportunity to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on his thought-provoking comments about the future constitutional position. I found his remarks about an asymmetrical settlement interesting, although I do not necessarily agree with them.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) also made some intriguing comments. He seems to be taking the argument about an English Parliament seriously, unlike the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who sadly did not have an opportunity to speak. I hope that I am not being too disrespectful when I say that she is raising the possibility of an English Parliament as an act of provocation. She is raising the spectre of English nationalism in an inflammatory way, when the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire looked on it as a possible solution to the anomalies in an asymmetrical system of devolution. As a Welsh Member, I am acutely aware that the UK has an asymmetrical system.
One of devolution's major implications for the House is that there will be an impetus towards further serious strategic thinking about the role of the regions in England and whether it is better to create a regional system or to consider England as having an identity in its own right. There are weaknesses and strengths in both arguments.
In the short time available, I shall deal with what I hope will be the exciting results of devolution. I am pleased that a partly proportional electoral system has been introduced for both bodies. It may be slightly controversial of me to say that, in many respects, the result was disappointing for the Labour party in Wales, but at least it has produced a body that is broadly proportional in terms of the votes cast.
I strongly believe that the balance of the parties in the Assembly is such that there will be an opportunity for more consensual and pluralist politics, and that is what the public want. It is possible to have consensus and pluralism and still have genuine scrutiny. One of the virtues of a more devolved system is that there can be more thorough scrutiny of how public money is spent and policy developed.
In contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), who over the weekend made derogatory comments in the press about the additional member system, I believe that, if the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales are seen to be working effectively and pioneering more pluralist, consensual politics, many people will recognise the strength of the Jenkins report, which offers a form of proportional representation that would maintain the constituency link while introducing a strong element of proportionality.
The existence of devolved bodies will serve as a substantial check and balance to our over-centralised system. Its reform is long overdue. The establishment of the bodies will engender diversity and a more competitive policy environment, which is to be welcomed. Profound changes are afoot and this is indeed an interesting time.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) that this is a short debate, but I am afraid that I can agree with him only on that point.
I was surprised to hear the suggestion that current events are giving Conservatives a dose of their own medicine. I hope that that is not why the Government are imposing devolution on us and failing to deal with the West Lothian question.
I could not pass up the opportunity to reflect on the new Labour Government's great achievements of the past two years, one of which is to have created two institutions that have breathed new life into nationalism and given it a home. So much for the promise to kill nationalism stone dead. They have created a system that has led to them losing some of their heartland seats. Coming from Swansea, I know Islwyn, Rhondda and Llanelli well. I never thought that I would live long enough to see them change their Labour party complexion, but they certainly did last week.
The Government are responsible for the improbable circumstance of the Secretary of State for Wales being the same person as the First Secretary of Wales. We have to concede that he just slipped into that position late on Friday as one of the regional list Members, but he will not be able to sustain his position as Secretary of State and First Secretary because of collective responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) mentioned the ban on beef on the bone. If the Welsh Assembly decides to lift the ban, the Secretary of State


for Wales will follow that route as First Secretary, but his own Government will wish him to follow a completely different route. I therefore believe that he should resign forthwith as Secretary of State for Wales.
The Government have also managed to split constituencies asunder. Seven constituencies in Wales are now served by politicians representing a different party from the party representing them at Westminster, and the same applies to three constituencies in Scotland. It will be interesting to see how those politicians work with each other. It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), who was present at the beginning of the debate, is not present at the end. I would have liked to ask him how he would continue to work with David Davies. Interesting times lie ahead.
The lacklustre turnout has been mentioned. All political parties will need to address that. A 46 per cent. turnout cannot be acceptable in the election of a body for which, we are told, the Welsh people have been waiting for 300 years. We must do something to ensure that there is a better turnout in the future, but compulsory voting is not the answer. As far as I am concerned, the voters are never wrong—although I had my doubts about the last general election—but, when they decide to stay at home, that says something to all of us.
Then there is the wonderful system of proportional representation with which we have now been blessed. It has assured us of a minority Government in both Scotland and Wales. Two out of two cannot be bad on the first go, can it? Deals—some formal, others informal—are now being struck between the Labour party and the party with the lowest representation: the party that came fourth in Wales and Scotland. Deals are now being done behind closed doors, and we will never know exactly what will happen. We could end up with policies that none of the parties supported.
There is also the problem of the Prime Minister's role, and his relationship with the devolved bodies. It has been said that
The Secretary of State's election was the result of a combination of old Labour vote-rigging and new Labour control freakery. Welsh electors last week expressed their anger at London's imposed leader. New Labour has created its own powerful opposition in Wales. It was a disaster, conceived in Downing Street and produced by a new Labour team in Cardiff. The party was judged to be unprincipled and undemocratic.
Those are the words of a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—and who am 1 to disagree with his views?
We have discussed policy differences. We have discussed the possibility that policies in Scotland and Wales will be different from those in the rest of England, and that we do not know what deals the Liberal Democrats will be able to extract from the Labour party in Scotland. I think that they will be a little more feisty than they were in the House of Lords when they caved in on the open-list system that they loved so much, and we ended up with a closed-list system for the European elections; but deals will be done. That is part of the present system of coalition.
Tuition fees have been mentioned. Irrespective of the system that is used, if tuition fees are abolished in Scotland, what will happen in England? Is it sustainable

to have no tuition fees in Scottish universities, but to have them in England—or for Scottish students to be given money amounting to the fees, so that they can go to any university in the United Kingdom, while English students are not given that opportunity?

Miss Begg: Perhaps the Scottish Tory party should have addressed those issues before it went into an election with the policy of abolishing tuition fees.

Mr. Evans: The issues have been dealt by the Conservative party in Scotland, as the hon. Lady knows. What I am pointing out are the anomalies that will exist in Scotland as a result of devolution. The position on tuition fees will be completely different in Scotland and in England. Does the hon. Lady really think that that will be sustainable? Her Government's policy is that tuition fees should be imposed on all students in England, yet in Scotland there will be no tuition fees.
I shall be interested to see whether the Liberal Democrats stick to their guns in Scotland. One Liberal Democrat member said:
There is going to be no backing down on this. If we roll over on this demand, we will he the laughing stock of Scotland.
The Liberal Democrats do not seem to have noticed that it is the Government who are the laughing stock of Scotland.
Then there is the policy on beef on the bone in Wales. Tomorrow, Rod Richards will table the motion that that ban should be lifted in Wales. I shall be interested to see whether the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru stick to their guns. During the election campaign, they said that they would support that policy. When the Welsh Assembly meets and discusses the motion, we shall see whether they support it.
T-bone steak will be the national dish of Wales. We know that the Secretary of State for Wales likes beef on the bone, although he cannot always recognise it, even when he is eating it. The absurd image of the meat police at the Severn bridge, turning people back with their beef on the bone, does not bear thinking about. Whitbread inns in Bristol will have no beef on the bone on their menu, but Whitbread restaurants in Newport will have it on the menu.
We want to know what will happen in Scotland with regard to tuition fees, and what will happen if the ban on beef on the bone is lifted in Wales. The Government cannot continue to shy away from answering the questions, as the Minister did in her opening remarks. It is shameful.
There is the problem of England. The West Lothian question has always been acknowledged, but it has never been addressed. What will happen? The right hon. Lady said that referendums will be held in the regions. It is as though she recognises that Scotland is a country, Wales is a country, but England is not—England is made up of various regions. That is not a consistent line, and she knows it.

Mrs. Liddell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the policy of his party to establish an English Parliament?

Mr. Evans: No, it is not. If the hon. Lady wishes to change places with me, I should be happy to sit where she



is sitting and make the real decisions that are necessary. When one is in government, one must make real decisions, but she is failing to do so. She is promoting referendums in the regions of England, but she is not prepared to accept that there is an English identity.
We know the views of the Liberal Democrats. I debated with one on Sunday, who said that they wanted English regions, and that the regions could have tax-raising or tax-varying powers. That means that the tax rate in the north-west of England could be 3p more than in the north-east or the south-west of England.

Mr. Maclennan: Those are our policies.

Mr. Evans: We know that those are the right hon. Gentleman's policies, and we are delighted to give them more publicity, as they are absurd.

Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is growing regional consciousness in England, with the regional development agencies and the regional chambers, at least one third of whose membership comprises non-elected social partners? Does he recognise that central powers are increasingly going to regional offices, and that the only thing that is missing is full democratic accountability? Does he accept the importance of the English regions?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady obviously lives in a different part of the north-west from me. As I was going around at the recent local elections, people did not say that they wanted a regional assembly elected in the north-west. They are certainly concerned about what is happening in Scotland and Wales.
What will the hon. Lady say to her constituents if the West Lothian question is not properly addressed? There could be a time when Scottish Members of Parliament could outvote her on issues that are purely English and Welsh, whereas she could have no say in what was happening in Scotland. Indeed, even a Scottish Member could not have a say in what was happening in Scotland. She knows that there is a real problem. She has acknowledged it, but the Government are not prepared to deal with it.

Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: No.
I know that changes will be made to the methodology, to the structure of Committees and Grand Committees and to Question Time, but I repeat this: I am a Welsh Member representing an English constituency and English taxpayers who are paying taxes which are spent in Scotland and in Wales, and my constituents expect me to have the opportunity to question Ministers on how that money is being spent. We cannot have taxation without proper representation; we cannot have taxation without Members of the United Kingdom Parliament asking United Kingdom Ministers how that money is being spent.
We are told that devolution is a journey, not a destination. The pressure will no doubt grow for more powers to go to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Indeed, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has already said that he, as a Westminster Member of Parliament, will push constantly

for more powers to go to both those bodies, but my biggest fear of all—in all this muddled thinking, incoherence and unjoined-up thinking—is that the very integrity of the United Kingdom is at risk.
We were told that devolution was a blueprint for a better Britain. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as we have seen from what happened on Friday and what has happened since. The whole mismanaged, ill-thought-out and piecemeal approach has led to instability and uncertainty throughout the United Kingdom. The alarm bells are ringing; the Government should take off their rose-tinted spectacles and wake up before it is too late.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I was trying to count the number of clichés in the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), but I should begin by responding to the other contributions that have been made this evening. First, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) focused a lot of his criticism on proportional representation. I remind him that proportional representation in Wales gave him Rod Richards; maybe that is why he is so bitterly opposed to it. Proportional representation in Wales gave the Conservatives a lifeline into the Assembly and gave all the minority parties representation that they would not otherwise have achieved and which we believe they should have had.
When the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), in an interesting speech, quoted The Birmingham Post in support of his case for an English parliament, he neglected to say that its top man on the board of directors is the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). The hon. Gentleman's contribution was interesting—1 shall return to this point—because his Front Benchers were notably silent about whether they support his case for an English parliament, preferring to dodge the question.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) made an interesting and thoughtful contribution. He referred to the importance of the English regions, which is a point that many of my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies would have made had they been called to speak. The Government's position on decentralisation of power and devolution of responsibility and decision making throughout Britain is that the English regions should be empowered as well. We have already begun to do that, through the establishment of regional development agencies for all nine regions of England—the statutory power came into force only a month ago.
We have already begun the process of achieving devolved bodies for the English regions by legislating for a Greater London Authority. Elections for the authority and for mayor of London will take place next year and we have already put in place regional chambers representing the nine English regions.
There are already signs—in the north-east, for example—that demand for regional government is building. As has been made clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) reinforced the point, if and when there is such demand in the English regions, as I hope that there will be, we will be able to


achieve elected regional government—under a Labour Government and after it has been sanctioned in a referendum.

Mr. Brady: The Minister referred to the possibility of a regional assembly for the north-west and other parts of the country. Does he realise that his message would carry more force if the regional development agency in the north-west were properly representative? After last week's results in the local elections, will he now agree to put a Conservative representative on the RDA in the north-west? It is a scandal that the Government have not done so before and, following last week's very good results for the Conservatives in the north-west, they should now do so.

Mr. Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants to emulate the experience of the old Welsh Development Agency, which was packed full of Conservative stooges, resulting in all sorts of shenanigans, which that the Labour Government have had to clear up. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will be found if—I should say when—Labour is elected at the next election, because there will be the opportunity for his area to have an elected regional government if the people wish it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made an extremely interesting speech and said that devolution was not about Scottish, Welsh or—for that matter—English nationalism, but about good governance and the modernisation of government. I agree. I agree also with his comments about the House of Commons trying to do too much, and doing it badly. That is an additional reason why we are pressing ahead with the decentralisation of power throughout Britain.
My hon. Friend asked about the reciprocity of access between Members of Parliament with Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly. That is a good point which ought to be examined by all three bodies. He asked also about overseas territories and whether they should have representation, and he mentioned Gibraltar. I should say that I have enough on my plate with Wales without considering Gibraltar or any other overseas territory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), by stark contrast with almost all Conservative Members, made a series of lucid points about the process of devolution upon which we have embarked.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was good enough to remind us of 1979 and his venerable leadership of the Scottish Conservative party. I believe that he was referred to as "the leader of one" and that he subsequently lost his seat in the process. He asked specifically about tuition fees. That is a matter devolved to Scotland. It will be within the rights of the Scottish Parliament to take a different decision on tuition fees, but it then must take the consequences in terms of spending within the Scottish block.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made a series of familiar points—it was like listening to an old gramophone record that we heard during the passage of Government of Wales Act and the Scotland Act. My right

hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that, after the transfer order goes through on 1 July, he does not think it appropriate that he should stay in post much longer because the two roles will eventually be incompatible. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much longer?"] My right hon. Friend has answered that question specifically.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred sarcastically to the current discussions between the Labour party and the other parties in the National Assembly. This is the new partnership politics that the Welsh Assembly was invited to project in Wales. It makes a difference from the old confrontational, elitist, centralised and dictatorial politics that we had during 18 years of Tory rule.
The real issue is that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his Tory colleagues can stand the idea of diversity. They do not like the idea that the Scottish Parliament may or may not decide to do something different about tuition fees. They do not like the idea that the Welsh Assembly may introduce free travel for senior citizens—something that does not exist as yet in England or Scotland. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley wants the uniformity that Thatcherism and Majorism thrust on all parts of the UK, to such disastrous effect.
What has characterised the debate is a series of illusions. First, the Conservatives claim to be speaking for England, but they are not. Only 31 per cent. of Members of Parliament in England are Conservative; just 165 out of 528. It is the Labour party that speaks for England. A total of 329 Members of Parliament in England—60 per cent.—are Labour Members.
The Conservatives do not speak for England. They do not speak for anyone but themselves. It is Labour that speaks for England. It is Labour that speaks for Scotland, Wales and indeed the whole of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Fox: Simply as a matter of interest, if the Labour party speaks for Scotland and Wales, why did it fail to win a majority in either Scotland or Wales last week?

Mr. Hain: The answer is simple: we designed an electoral system to ensure that the Opposition parties got fairer representation. Labour is by far the biggest party in both Scotland and Wales, but we are proud of introducing a fairer electoral system, which gave a lifeline to the Scottish Conservative party and to the Welsh Conservatives as well.

Mr. Llwyd: Given what the Minister has said, can he explain why the Labour vote in Wales was the lowest since 1931?

Mr. Hain: There are lots of explanations for that, but there is an important point, from which the hon. Gentleman's party has benefited. We won 27 out of the 40 single Member seats in Wales. We are by far the biggest party. If we had not had a fairer system, his party would not have got the representation that it has. Nevertheless, I congratulate it on its achievement.
The second thing that the Conservatives claim is that their policies will strengthen the Union. Their policies created the problems that resulted in resurgent nationalism, to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred. The Conservative leader admitted as much in an astonishing speech on 24 February last year,


when he confessed that, in the 1980s and 1990s, Tory Governments politically neglected Britain in not moving fast enough to satisfy demands in Scotland and Wales for a measure of self-government.
The third illusion concerns the West Lothian factor. I remind Conservative Members that the West Lothian factor has been eclipsed by the West Clwyd factor. The Tory leader in Wales could not even win his own constituency. Indeed, his vote fell by 5 per cent. compared with when he lost the seat in 1997 to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who, on the current trend, will certainly retain his seat next time.
The results in Wales were desperately bad for the Conservative party. I give figures on the seats that they held until 1997. In Cardiff, North, their vote was down 2 per cent. In Brecon and Radnorshire, it was down 5 per cent. In Clwyd, West, it was down 5 per cent. In Conwy, it was down 6 per cent. On the basis of such a mid-term performance, they are not in any position to make a comeback. Labour is poised to win the next general election in Wales, Scotland and, indeed, throughout Britain.
There is much confusion as to whether the Conservatives want an English Parliament. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire argued that case strongly. Many people in Wales and Scotland maintain that that is what they had under the Conservatives for 18 years: a Parliament representing England alone. One of the solutions to that problem is being provided by the Labour Government through devolution for Scotland and Wales.
In an article published today, the former Member, Michael Portillo said—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 358.

Division No. 170]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
& Howden)


Bercow, John
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, lain


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Evans, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Faber, David


Brady, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Flight, Howard


Burns, Simon
Forsythe, Clifford


Butterill, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


(Chipping Barnet)
Fox, Dr Liam


Chope, Christopher
Fraser, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gale, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gibb, Nick


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Gill, Christopher


Gran, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Curry, Rt Hon David
Green, Damian





Greenway, John
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Randall, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heald, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Soames, Nicholas 


Johnson Smith,
Spicer, Sir Michael


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Streeter, Gary


Lansley, Andrew
Syms, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) 


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tredinnick, David



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Trend, Michael


Loughton, Tim
Tyrie, Andrew


Luff, Peter
Walter, Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Waterson, Nigel


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whiotney, Sir Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Madel, Sir David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Malins, Humfrey
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Willetts, David


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Woodward, Shaun 


May, Mrs Theresa
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Norman, Archie



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paice, James
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Pickles, Eric
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradshaw


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brake, Tom


Ainger, Nick
Brand, Dr Peter


Allan, Richard
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
(Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ballard, Jackie
Buck, Ms Karen



Banks, Tony
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Burgon, Colin


Barron, Kevin
Burnett, John


Bayley, Hugh
Burstow, Paul


Beard, Nigel
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Begg, Miss Anne
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies


Bennett, Andrew F
(NE Fife)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Berry, Roger
Cann, Jamie


Blackman, Liz
Casale, Roger


Blears, Ms Hazel
Casale, Martin


Blizzard, Bob
Casale, Martin


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cawsey, Ian


Boateng, Paul
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Borrow, David
Chaytor, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Chidgey, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)






Clark, Dr Lynda
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Harvey, Nick


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain
Hepburn, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cranston, Ross
Hoey, Kate


Crausby, David
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Hope, Phil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


(Copeland)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Simon  (Southwark N)


Davidson, Ian
Humble Mrs Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan 


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Dawson, Hilton
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Denham, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda Hampstead)


Dismore, Andrew 
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobbin, Jim
Jamieson, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jenkins, Brian


Donohoe, Brian H
Johnson, Alan Hull W & Hessle)


Doran, Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Dowd, Jim
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Drew, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Mrs Fiona Newark)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Helen Warrington N)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Ms Jenny


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Etherington, Bill
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa



Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fisher, Mark
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Lsleworth)


Flint, Caroline
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Follett, Barbara
Kemp, Fraser


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kennedy, Jane Wavertree)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kidney, David


Fyfe, Maria
Kilfoyle, Peter


Galloway, George
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gapes, Mike
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gardiner, Barry
Kirkwood, Archy


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gerrard, Neil
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gibson, Dr Ian
Laxton, Bob


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Leslie, Christopher


Godman, Dr Norman A
Levitt, Tom


Godsiff, Roger
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Livingstone, Ken


Grocott, Bruce
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hain, Peter
Lock, David



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McAvoy, Thomas





McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Ruddock, Joan


(Makerfield)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Sanders, Adrian


McFall, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McNulty, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


MacShane, Denis
Sheerman, Barry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Simpson, Alan (Notttingham S)


Mallaber, Judy
Singh, Marsha


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
 

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stevenson, George


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Lan (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mudie, George
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stringer, Graham


Oaten, Mark
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Olner, Bill
(Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Temple—Morris, Peter


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Thomas, Gareth (Glwyd W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Timms, Stephen


Pearson, Ian
Todd, Mark


Perham, Ms Linda
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Truswell, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Ward, Ms Claire


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Webb, Steve


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Raynsford, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rendel, David
(Swansea W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooker, Jeff
Wills, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruane, Chris
Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil






Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Wyatt, Derek
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order NO. 31 (Question on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 118.

Division No. 171]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr Lynda


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allan, Richard
Clark, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Ballard, Jackie
Coaker,Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bames, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael

Beard, Nigel
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
C1orston, Ms Jean


Begg, Miss Anne
Cotter, Brian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cranston, Ross


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Blizzard, Bob
(Copeland)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradshaw,Ben
Davidson, Ian


Brake, Tom
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dawson, Hilton


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Dean, Mrs Janet


(Dunfermline E)
Denham, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Drew, David


Burnett, John
Drown, Ms Julia


Burstow, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Ennis, Jeff


(NE Fife)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark


Casale, Roger
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Caton, Martin
Flint, Caroline


Cawsey, Ian
Follett, Barbara


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chidgey, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fyfe, Maria





Galloway, George
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gapes, Mike
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gardiner, Barry
Laxton, Bob


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Leslie, Christopher


Gerrard, Neil
Levitt, Tom


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Godman, Dr Norman A

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Goggins, Paul
Linton, Martin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Livingstone, Ken


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lock, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McAvoy, Thomas


Grocott, Bruce
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Hain, Peter
(Makerfield)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McDonnell, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McFall, John


Hancock, Mike
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hanson, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Harris, Dr Evan
McNulty, Tony


Harvey, Nick
MacShane, Denis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mactaggart, Fiona


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallabar, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heppell, John
Marsdon, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michie,Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Miller, Andrew


Howells, Dr Kim
Mitchell, Austin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moonie,Dr Lewis


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moran, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Morley, Elliot


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
 

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
 

Jamieson, David
Olner, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Organ, Ms Diana


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pickthall, Colin


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice,Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Radice, Giles


Kingham, Ms Tess
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)






Rendel, David
Stringer, Graham


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
(Dewsbury)


Roy, Frank
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ruane, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Ruddock, Joan
Temple—Morris, Peter


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sanders, Adrian
Timms, Stephen


Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Truswell,Paul


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner,Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner,Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg,Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tyler,Paul


Singh, Marsha
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Ward,Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Webb,Steve


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Snape, Peter
(Swansea W)


Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Spellar, John
Wills, Michael


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winnick, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Stevenson, George
Wood, Mike


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Clive Betts and


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bercow, John
Fallon, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fallon, Howard


Blunt, Crispin
Forsythe, Clifford


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fox, Dr Liam


Brady, Graham
Fraser,Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gibb, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gill, Christopher


(Chipping Barnet)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Gray, James


Clappison, James
Green, Damian


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Greenway, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Grieve, Dominic


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Hammond, Philip


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hawkins, Nick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Heald, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


& Howden)
Horam, John


Day, Stephen
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan Smith, lain
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)





Johnson Smith
Rowe, Andrey (Faversham)


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ruffley, David


Key, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lansley, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Leigh, Edward
shepherd, Richard


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Simpson,Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lidington, David
soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Loughton, Tim
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Streeter,Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tapsell, Sir peter


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
 

Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Tyrie, Andrew


Malins, Humfrey
Walter, Robert


Maples, John
Walter, charles


Mates, Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Whittingdale, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Willetts, David


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paice, James
Woodward, Shaun


Pickles, Eric
Yeo, Tim


Prior, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, following the elections on 6th May, and the prospect of working co-operatively with these bodies and in particular the opportunity this presents to make government more democratic, accountable and inclusive within the context of a stronger Union.

PETITION

Hunting with Dogs

Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to have this opportunity to present a petition of 258 signatures collected in one day in South Swindon. I agree with the petitioners that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs
is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in a modern Britain.
The petition continues:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from MPs and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition. And the petitioners remain etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Rural Crime and Vandalism

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Mr. John Smith: I welcome this opportunity to bring to the House's attention the serious problem of crime and vandalism in rural towns and communities in my constituency. I was not surprised to discover that rural crime and vandalism was a far more widespread problem than I had first imagined. Since the subject of this Adjournment debate appeared on the Order Paper, I have received a number of representations from organisations and individuals throughout the country who share my concerns about vandalism in rural towns in England and Wales.
I have received representations from the British Retail Consortium, for example, about crime in shops in rural areas, from crime prevention groups, from individuals and from hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have expressed their deep concern. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) describe almost the same problems in his constituency that we are experiencing in my constituency. Large gangs of teenagers are committing wanton and reckless vandalism and damage for no apparent reason in our rural town centres.
The problem came to my notice a couple of months ago when Mr. Colin Webster came to my constituency surgery. I sat in disbelief as he described to me the catalogue of destruction and damage to his property in the past few years. His shop window has not just been smashed on the odd occasion, cracked or had something bump into it, but has systematically been broken, week in and week out for months and years. The poor man has had to pay in excess of £104,000. It is a small hardware shop in a rural part of my constituency, and in a rural area such shops are an essential facility. Often, it is hard to keep retail outlets going in rural areas. Mr. Webster has had to pay an enormous amount to replace the glass broken as a result of teenagers congregating on Friday and Saturday nights.
I listened to him in disbelief, not only because of the extent of the damage, but because it occurred in one of the most attractive rural towns in my constituency—Llantwit Major. It did not take place, for example, in an urban area of high social deprivation, where, it is sad to admit, one might reasonably expect to find that sort of vandalism and where one would think that it would be more common. However, that is not the case at all; the vandalism occurs in a rather prosperous and attractive town in the heart of my constituency. Indeed, it is a very attractive town; it has some of the highest land values in Wales. To the south of the town lies the beautiful, heritage coast of the Vale of Glamorgan; to the west is St. Donat's castle, which was at one time the home of William Randolph Hearst and is now the Atlantic college—the international college; to the north are the rolling hills for which the Vale of Glamorgan is famous; and to the east is RAF St. Athan.
The area is an ideal place in which to live and to settle down, but unfortunately it is being blighted by the mindless actions of gangs of teenagers. I was shocked to discover the extent of that vandalism; it is not confined

to only one town. As I discovered, it occurs much more commonly throughout the country than I had first realised, so I am sure that many people can relate to the problem. The teenagers who commit that vandalism come from respectable families in a middle-class area. I believe that is a relatively modern phenomenon. In the 1980s, we saw the lager louts spring up and now, in the 1990s, we seem to have the phenomenon of gangs of teenagers from respectable homes committing vandalism.
I promised Mr. Webster that I would do what I could for him and that I would take the matter up at every level and investigate the causes of the problem. Those investigations proved most interesting. There are many structural reasons for such vandalism and many simple, practical reasons. I think it is worth drawing the House's attention to some of those reasons, because the problem is not confined to one area. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and people throughout the country, will hear the ring of truth when I tell the House what is happening and why it happens.
For example, in recent years, Llantwit Major has undergone a dramatic increase in size; the population has increased by more than one fifth. However, the sad truth is that the facilities for youngsters and teenagers in that community have not experienced an increase commensurate with the population increase. My old friend, Bob Fussell, who runs the youth centre, told me that as many as 120 young teenagers, up to the age of 14, might be at the youth club on a busy night. That is an indication of how many teenagers now live in the town. I am not convinced that enough is being provided for them to occupy their leisure time.
A common complaint from the youngsters is that, for years, there has been inadequate transport serving rural areas—a common theme throughout the country. We have inadequate bus services; a railway line runs through the town, but there is no passenger service. Youngsters have no access to cities and urban areas. It takes mum a couple of hours to do a round journey to the city to drop off the children so that they can go to the cinema, go skating or take up the same leisure options as other youngsters. That can cause some frustration, so the youngsters congregate in large numbers—30 or 40—usually after the disco on a Friday night, and end up doing a great deal of damage.
The area in which the youngsters congregate has extremely bad lighting—it is a shopping precinct off the main road in Llantwit Major. There are many alleyways through which the youngsters can get in and out, so, when the police arrive, as they frequently do, the youngsters disperse quickly. The local shop, Somerfield, leaves its trolleys out overnight, and we are trying to get it to stop doing so, because the youngsters use the trolleys to ram shop windows and do all sorts of damage. There are practical steps that we can take—for example, improve the lighting in that area. We have made representations to local agencies, and I am glad to say that, through the partnership approach that has been adopted and encouraged by the Government, great strides are being made in dealing with the problem.
I have to point out that one of the key factors is underage drinking by these very young teenagers and younger children. During my investigations on behalf of Mr. Webster, I was surprised to learn that the alcohol does not come from the local off-licence or the pub, being bought by an older teenager or an adult, or from the shops in the area that now sell alcohol. In fact, most of the
alcohol comes from the youngsters' homes: they take it from the fridge or from the cocktail cabinet, and—I hate to say this—occasionally their parents know what is going on and turn a blind eye, thinking that it is only a little youthful mischief. The children cannot handle their drink and they go out, get drunk and congregate in large groups; they often start showing off to each other and end up doing a great deal of damage, so undermining the quality of life for people living in a community that would otherwise enjoy many advantages.

Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning me earlier. I concur with his argument that underage drinking is a common theme in these problems. From talking to my local police, I know that, often, when they have had occasion to take home very young, drunk children, either no parents are at home or, if the parents are at home, they tend to laugh off the incident; yet underage drinking and the behaviour associated with it feeds into a vicious circle and causes the problems about which my hon. Friend is talking.

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he raises one of the key issues on which we should focus, and gives me an opportunity to draw it to the Minister's attention. I have already said that the partnership approach is the way to achieve results. We must support the police in any way that we can in policing such areas, by using the local authority, the voluntary sector and neighbourhood watch schemes. However, I passionately believe that parents must be part of that partnership: they must play a key role in what we are trying to do to stamp out vandalism in communities like Llantwit Major. If we do not involve parents fully, it will be extremely difficult to get rid of the relatively modern phenomenon of teenage gangs vandalising our rural town centres.
I do not think that parents believe what their children are up to. I have said it once, but I shall say it again: these are respectable families. The youngsters come from good homes which are, by and large, secure homes, and I do not think that parents believe that their little Johnny and their little Mary are out doing damage on Friday or Saturday night. Let us take tonight: I wonder how many parents in rural communities throughout England and Wales can put their hand on their heart and say with certainty where their 13, 14 and 15-year-old children are right now, at 10.30 on a weekday night. Many of them would be extremely surprised to discover what some of their youngsters are up to even in the middle of the week, and on a Friday or Saturday night the problem is 10 or 20 times worse. Parents have a key responsibility.
I have spoken to Mr. Webster and the other shopkeepers in the precinct and the surrounding area, and all give me the same message: something has to be done—this has gone on for years.
The local authority is considering the lighting and the access and egress. The police are focusing resources on the area, and the local youth club and the voluntary sector are co-ordinating their activities with other agencies. The shopkeepers believe that they need closed circuit television because of the area's layout. I support them in that request, and I have written to the Minister about the issue. I am delighted to say that he has replied, pointing

out that the prospectus for the Government's crime reduction plans will be released shortly, and that the £170 million accompanying it could include provision for closed circuit television in the area. I hope that the CCTV proposal will be considered sympathetically, and I am sure that the retailers and the whole community will submit a bid to that effect.
Something must be done to encourage parental responsibility. I hope that drawing attention to this problem in this short Adjournment debate will get the message across to the mums and dads, not just in Llantwit Major in my constituency but in rural communities throughout the Vale of Glamorgan. I promised Mr. Webster that I would do all that I could to help him in this matter. I promised that I would take it as far as I could and I think that, by raising the issue on the Floor of the House this evening, I have fulfilled my commitment.
If the vandals win and Mr. Webster is forced to close the store that he has run in the town for 18 years, the whole community will lose. Everyone will lose that valuable service and facility by giving in to vandalism. We cannot afford to give in, and I hope that the Minister can offer me help and encouragement in solving this problem.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): By bringing this important matter before the House tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has not only done Mr. Webster and his other constituents a service but assisted the Government in addressing an issue that concerns us all. My hon. Friend gives the lie to the notion that crime and concern about crime is the preserve of urban, not rural, areas. We in the Home Office recognise that that is an important issue in rural areas, and we share the real determination expressed by my hon. Friend, his constituents and the local police in south Wales—and the Vale of Glamorgan in particular—to ensure that all agencies concerned with, and affected by, the criminal justice system work in a concerted and focused way to tackle the crime and disorder issues of rural areas.
I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency during his initial election campaign—it is some years ago now—when his constituents first had the good sense to send him to this place. I visited both south Wales and Dyfed-Powys recently and saw for myself the impact of rural crime. I surveyed the situation from the vantage points of a patrol car, a patrol helicopter and a coastal patrol boat, which I helped to launch. Rural crime clearly deserves the attention of the House and of the police and the local community.
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise partnership in combating rural crime. The countryside suffers its share of criminal activity and disorder. In rural life, issues such as stealing stock, breaking into premises to take animals, damage to crops and the stealing of farm equipment are as current as the problems of burglary, theft and violence that are familiar to us in an urban environment. People in rural and urban areas are fed up to the back teeth with having their property violated, their freedom of movement constrained, their public spaces wrecked in the manner that my hon. Friend has described and their peace and tranquillity threatened by the criminal or anti-social activities of a selfish minority.
The Government have taken action through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and we are determined to continue focusing on the issues. As strategies have developed, we have been heartened to see how local partnerships have emerged to tackle the problems. I recently had the privilege of visiting the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), where I saw the development of a local strategy that embraced issues of rural crime and the importance of the work of the police, but also properly addressed the need to involve young people as part of the solution to the problem that a tiny minority of them represent.
It is important to put the problem in perspective. We are talking about a minority of young people involved in crime and anti-social behaviour. We should not forget that, but nor should we excuse it. I heard what my hon. Friend said about recreation and access to facilities. The lack of access to leisure and educational facilities is a concern. The Home Office programme development unit is funding a Suffolk-based project aimed at reducing risk factors and offending in rural areas by improving access to facilities and increasing participation in community life. The project is due for completion at the end of 1999. We are determined to learn lessons from it and to roll out some of the good practice in succeeding years.
I do not underestimate the importance of leisure and educational facilities, but we should remember that the examples that my hon. Friend gave involved activity on a Friday night after a disco. The people involved had access to a recreational facility and they subsequently trashed the surrounding environment, making themselves a nuisance and a menace to honest, law-abiding elements in the community. That cannot be tolerated or excused.
One of the lessons that we are learning from the emerging crime and disorder strategies is the importance of identifying problem hot spots such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred where loitering, creating mayhem, vandalism and graffiti are all too often prevalent. We must work concertedly with local agencies to address that. Partnerships are particularly important. They involve the private and public sector, off-licences, other community facilities, pubs and clubs. They must all be part of the solution, or they will constitute part of the problem. We have to ensure that we support the police and local authorities in the leadership that they give in the crime and disorder strategies so that we have a joined-up approach that takes advantage of licensing law and regulation, planning in relation to lighting and closed circuit television.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for corresponding with me about CCTV, which enables me to assure him, as I did in my letter to him, that he and his local authority and the police in Llantwit Major will be able to respond to the prospectus that we shall issue, probably at the end of May. They will be able to demonstrate how they would use that technology as part of a wider strategy to reduce crime in their area. CCTV needs to be viewed in its widest context because it is not designed to be a quick fix; it needs to be linked to the actions of the police and, for example, the door-keeping activities of local retailers and proprietors. It needs to be linked also to neighbourhood watch schemes and various other local schemes that can contribute to the partnership.
There will be an opportunity for local authorities to bid for the resources that will be available as part of the £150 million programme of work over the next three years, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. We know from work that is already going on that there is much to be gained from that partnership approach.
Neighbourhood watch is a fine example of what people can do together, particularly in rural areas, acting as the eyes and ears of the police. There are many other excellent watch schemes. In my recent visit to Wales, I had an opportunity to learn about schemes such as farm watch, horse watch and country and poacher watch, which are all directly relevant to rural areas and have a contribution to make. They reflect the rural community's willingness to help the police to fight crime. They represent an opportunity for the community to get involved, eschew what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has described as the walk-on-by society and actively watch out for each other—especially the most vulnerable.
The crime reduction programme, which includes £250 million over the next three years, will underpin that partnership and evidence-based crime reduction work. It is the largest-ever single investment of its kind anywhere, and it aims to reverse the long-term rise in crime of 5 per cent. a year since 1980. We recently announced 11 proposals under the programme's targeted policing initiative which have been shortlisted and are now being developed further. Those measures are designed to develop policing techniques that we can spread across the country. Rural areas will be the beneficiaries of that.
As my hon. Friend said, vandalism is a problem. That was identified as a priority in the Vale of Glamorgan's audit. It will be tackled in the first year of its strategy, along with domestic burglary and vehicle crime. The Home Office's retail crime reduction action team and its predecessor, the retail action group, have produced various guidance for large and small retailers. I shall arrange for the team to forward details to my hon. Friend so that he can pass them on to his constituent.
All the evidence demonstrates that we need to maximise effective co-ordinated, preventive action at a local level to identify the means of tackling issues and bringing parties together. We envisage such partnerships developing in the Vale of Glamorgan. They will work towards reducing the unpleasant and extremely expensive menace of vandalism. Vandalism contributes to environmental degradation. It is not to be excused, and will not be excused. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 enables, where the value of goods damaged is more than £2,000, the imposition of a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for those aged 18 or over, and two years' detention in a young offenders institution for those aged 15 to 17. Within the maximum limit, it is for the courts to decide in the light of all the circumstances; but they will bear in mind the impact of such vandalism on the communities that they serve.
The police are there to stand four square with those local communities, building on intelligence-led policing and using and building on the framework that we provided in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I have no doubt that CCTV, which my hon. Friend mentioned, can play a major part in the development of that.
Our rural life is precious. It may on occasion appear idyllic, but, as my hon. Friend says, appearances can be deceptive. The fear of crime is real, and must be reduced. The environment must be protected. We are determined that the measures that we have introduced, are introducing and will continue to introduce will support the decent, law-abiding people who constitute the overwhelming

majority by maintaining the safety, security and tranquillity of their communities. In the Vale of Glamorgan, those communities have been served by my hon. Friend's initiating tonight's debate. The House is grateful to him and to his constituent for raising the matter: we will not fail them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.